IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2009 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1931 RP.No. 405 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.15545/2004 Dated 04/02/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): IST RESPONDENT ------------------------------------ PRABHA, D/O.RAGHAVAN, AGED 59 YEARS, KADAYIL VEEDU, VALIYAKADA, CHIRAYINKEEZHU. BY ADV. SRI.D.R.KAMATH RESPONDENT(S): WRIT PETITIONER ------------------------------ 1. K.V.MRINALINI, KADAYIL VEEDU, VALIYAKADA, CHIRAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, CHIRAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE TALUK SURVEYOR, CHIRAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. S. EASWARAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2009, THE COURT, ON THE SAME DAY, PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= R.P. No. 405 of 2009 in W. P (C) No. 15545 of 2004 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 8th April, 2009. O R D E R The petitioner seeks review of my judgment dated 4-2-2009 on the ground that the matter had already been settled. The petitioner relies on Annexure A1 draft for this purpose. However, the petitioner in the review petition candidly admits that Annexure A1 has not been signed by the petitioner in the writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner in the writ petition submits that there is no such settlement. That being so, on that ground the review petition cannot be entertained. 2. As far as the contentions on merits are concerned, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment, the petitioner's remedy lies in filing an appeal and not seeking re-hearing of the writ petition itself which is what the petitioner in the review petition seeks. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the review petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.