IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2010 / 18TH JYAISTHA 1932 RP.No. 290 of 2010(E) ------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.20081/2009 Dated 13/11/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): 5TH RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------ MUHAMMED RIYAS,S/O.MUHAMMED RAWTHER, UTHAMAPALAYAM TOWN, UTHAMAPALAYAM MAIN ROAD, THENI, TAMILNADU. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.VIDYASAGAR SRI.P.CHANDY JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------- 1. JOHN JOSEPH,S/O.JOSEPH, VALIPLACKAL HOUSE, ANAVILASAM, IDUKKI, 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KUMILY. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,KUMILY. 4. MURUGAN, LOCAL COMMITTEE SECRETARY OF CPI (M).ANAVILASAM, KUMILY. 5. P.K.KANNAN, MADHAVANGANAM,ANAVILASAM,KUMILY. GOVT.PLERACER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. Basheer & C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.No. 290 of 2010 in W.P(C).No. 20081 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8th day of June, 2010 Order Basheer, J: Having perused the grounds urged in the review petition and having heard learned counsel for the petitioner we do not find any reason to entertain this petition. 2. Admittedly the review petitioner who was respondent No.5 in the writ petition was served with notice. His case is that he did not enter appearance in the case since the writ petitioner had assured him that he would not pursue the matter in view of Annexure A1 agreement executed between him and the writ petitioner and others. By the said agreement the dispute that had arisen pursuant to Ext.P1 agreement for sale had been compromised. 3. But the apprehension of the petitioner is that, the judgment under review may be misused by the writ petitioner to oust him from the property which is the subject matter of Ext.P1 as well as Annexure A1. The contention of the petitioner is that he is in exclusive possession of the said property. 4. But it may be noticed that the Division Bench IRP.290/2010 : 2 : has made the following observation in the judgment: “We make it clear that the judgment shall not be taken and understood as the determination of any of the civil rights of the parties and those are issues to be settled before the civil court” In our view, the rights of the petitioner would not be affected by the judgment in the writ petition. The issues, if any, relating to those rights can be settled only through a civil court. In that view of the matter the review petition is totally misconceived and therefore it is dismissed. A.K. Basheer Judge. C.T. Ravikumar Judge.