IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2009 / 15TH ASWINA 1931 RP.No. 928 of 2009(O) IN WP(C).NO.7294 OF 2009 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.7294/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS: ---------------------- 1. AMMUKUTTY KALLIMOODU, MEKKUMKARA VEEDU, VELLARADA, NEYYATTINKARA. 2. KUNJURAMANKANI PATHAELIKULAM PUTHEN VEEDU, VELLARADA,NEYYATTINKARA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SUJIN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: --------------- VELLARADA GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, VELLARADA. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- R.P.NO.928 OF 2009 IN W.P.(C).NO.7294 OF 2009 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of October, 2009 O R D E R The review petition is filed by the petitioners in W.P.(C).No.7294 of 2009 to review the judgment dated 25.5.2009 rendered in the writ petition. The grievance canvassed by the petitioners in the review petition is that the observations made by this Court in the judgment may have some bearing or influence in the decision of the suit on merit after trial. The above apprehension is entertained in view of the following observation in the judgment which reads thus: “On the materials produced, two courts have concurrently found that the case advanced by plaintiffs that the deed executed by them created a trust and the very purpose of such trust having extinguished the title reverted back to them, is prima facie not acceptable.” R.P.NO.928 OF 2009 IN W.P.(C).NO.7294 OF 2009 () 2 Needless to point out, this Court in stating that two courts have concurrently found was only referring that the two courts have taken a view while considering the I.A. as indicated, and not of any definite finding on any disputed questions. Having regard to the apprehension raised by the petitioners, I find it is only proper to make it clear that the trial court shall dispose the suit untrammelled by any of the observations made in its order or in the judgment rendered by lower appellate court, and of this Court in the writ petition. The review petition is disposed with the above observations. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp