IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2010 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1931 RP.No. 236 of 2010(O) --------------------- ( AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.6076/2009 DATED 07/09/2009 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT) .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------------- CHINNAMMA, AGED 79 YEARS W/O.C.T.CHERIAN, KOCHUMANGALATH HOUSE KOLENCHERY, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.MADHU.T. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. ELIAS, AGED 63 YEARS S/O.VARKEY, MUNDAYIL HOUSE, PERINGOLAKARA, AIKKARANADU NORTH VILLAGE KOLENCHERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. THANKACHAN,S/O.ELIAS, AGED 45 YEARS, MUNDAYIL HOUSE, PERINGOLAKARA, AIKKARANADU NORTH VILLAGE, KOLENCHERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR. BASIL MATHEW. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. --------------------------------------------- R.P.No.236 of 2010 in W.P.(C).No.6076 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of March, 2010 O R D E R This petition has been filed by the writ petitioner in the above writ petition which had been disposed of by judgment dated 7.9.2009, for review of that judgment. An order passed by the court below allowing a commission application moved by the plaintiff in a suit pending for adjudication was challenged invoking the writ jurisdiction of this court. Taking note that the suit was one for fixation of boundary and challenge raised was against the appointment of commission, which was negatived, the writ petition was dismissed. 2. Previously, the petitioner had filed two revisions as against the orders passed by the court below rejecting his applications seeking rejection of the plaint and also dismissal of the suit as not R.P.No.236 of 2010 in W.P.(C).No.6076 of 2009 :: 2 :: maintainable, which reliefs were canvassed by filing separate petitions. The reliefs in such petitions were canvassed contending that there is a binding decision in a previous suit between the parties with respect to the very same matter and so much so, the trial of the present suit is barred by res judicata. Reserving the right of the petitioner to raise the plea of res judicata in the suit, both the revisions filed against the dismissal of his petitions were closed. Pursuant to the disposal of those revisions, the writ petition was filed as against the order passed by the court below appointing an advocate commissioner on the request made by the plaintiff in the suit. As already indicated, the challenge against that order by way of a writ petition was not entertained. Now the review petition has been filed canvassing again a case that the suit claim raised by the plaintiff is barred by res judicata. R.P.No.236 of 2010 in W.P.(C).No.6076 of 2009 :: 3 :: 3. Having regard to the narrow scope of review jurisdiction, I find, the reasons set out for reviewing the judgment rendered in the writ petition cannot be entertained. Review petition lacks, and it is rejected. Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/- //true copy// P.S. to Judge.