IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2009 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1931 RP.No. 99 of 2009(V) -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN RP.41/2008 DATED 19/06/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/REVIEW PETITIONER IN RP.NO.41/08.: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- C. RADHAKRISHNAN, RADHA BHAVAN (KRISHNA PRABHA), NEAR E.S.I. DISPENSARY, THAZHOTHU BHAGOM, PUNALUR POST. BY ADV. MR.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT IN RP NO.41/08: ----------------------------------------------------------------- M/S.GOPIKRISHNA REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LTD., REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, ADV. G.C. KANNAN, GOPIKRISHNA, THALICODU, PUNALUR. BY ADV. MR.M.R. ANANDAKUTTAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ M.N. KRISHNAN, J. --------------------------- R.P.NO.99 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT This review petition is filed to review the order passed in a review petition in W.P.(C)No.36303/2007. The learned counsel for the review petitioner very strongly contends before me that in the light of the observations made in my order, the trial court is attempting to have a denovo trial of the entire proceedings. What ever it may be, for the purpose of clarity, I make it clear that by virtue of my order dated 7.12.2007 what I have ordered and permitted is to allow the parties to file application for setting aside the commissioner's plan and report or for remission. I have not preclude the opposite party from raising contention of the non-maintainability of such petition. Therefore, when such an application is filed and the other side raises a ground regarding the maintainability, that also may be considered along with the application and appropriate orders be passed. Thus the original order passed by me is clarified. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl 2 3