IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2009 / 7TH SRAVANA 1931 RP.No. 717 of 2009(N) --------------------- (AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.14774 OF 2009) REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ----------------------------- JACOB JOSEPH, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.OUSEPH,KOTHAKULANGARA VIRUNNATTU, ERAMALLOOR P.O.,EZHUPUNNA VILLAGE EZHUPUNNA GRAMA PANCHAYAT WARD XIII, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------- 1. EZHUPUNNA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CHERTHALA. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE AROOR. 5. SOMAN, S/O.MARAKKITHARA KARUPPAN ERAMALLOOR P.O.,EZHUPUNNA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 6. KUTTAN, S/O.MATTAPPURATH NIKARTHIL SREEDHARAN, ERAMALLOOR P.O.,EZHUPUNNA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 7. PRAKASAN, S/O.MARAKKITHARA VAVA ERAMALLOOR P.O.,EZHUPUNNA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 8. SATHEESAN, S/O.MARAKKITHARA SANKARAN, ERAMALLOOR P.O.,EZHUPUNNA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 9. ANILKUMAR, S/O.MATTAPPURATH SANKARAN ERAMALLOOR P.O.,EZHUPUNNA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.A.SALIM. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------- R.P.No. 717 of 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 29th July,2009 O R D E R Raman, J. According to the counsel for the review petitioner, if anybody has got a case that there is pathway on the northern side, it is for the person who alleges the right of pathway to approach the Civil Court and not the petitioner. Hence, the observation contained in last but one sentence of paragraph 4 that “In case, petitioner has got any dispute with regard to the construction of compound wall on the northern side, it is for him to approach the Civil Court” is sought to be reviewed. What is stated in paragraph 4 is that as regards the northern boundary is concerned, it is for the civil court to decide the matter, and either of the parties can approach the civil court. With the above clarification, the review petition is closed. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN , JUDGE. nj.