IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 21ST MAGHA 1930 RP.No. 113 of 2009() ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN FAO.298/2008 Dated 28/11/2008 AS.73/2005 of SUB COURT,THODUPUZHA .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT -------------------------------- CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, CHUNAYAMMACKEL HOUSE (MAVELIL), MANAKKAD KARA, MANAKKAD VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADVS. MR.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI MR.A.S.SAJUSH PAUL RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT ------------------------ 1. BHARATHY, W/O. BHASKARAN NAIR, VADOOR HOUSE, MANAKKAD VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA. 2. ANIL KUMAR, S/O. BHASKARAN NAIR, VADOOR HOUSE, MANAKKAD VILLAGE, THODUPZHA. 3. SUNIL KUMAR, S/O. BHASKARAN NAIR, VADOOR HOUSE, MANAKKAD VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. MR.SAJU S.A. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- R.P.No. 113 OF 2009 In F.A.O. No. 298 OF 2008 --------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of February, 2009 O R D E R This revision is filed with the grievance that the court has disposed of the matter without hearing the review petitioner. Therefore in fairness I heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner and I had gone through the entire judgment once again. What I have directed is to direct the appellate court to consider the question of title as claimed by the plaintiff before passing an order of remand. It does not call for any interference. Therefore I dispose of the review petition making it clear that I had taken into consideration the contentions raised by the review petitioner as well at the time of passing of my earlier order. Review Petition disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN,JUDGE vkm