IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2011 / 27TH ASWINA 1933 RP.No. 761 of 2011 ------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN AS.824/1996 Dated 14/07/2010 .................... PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2/DEFENDANTS 1 & 2: 1. SRI.GUJARATHI VIDHYALAYA ASSOCIATION REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, BEACH ROAD, CALICUT. 2. VIJAY SINH PADAMSI, MANAGER, SRI.GUJARATHI VIDHYALAYA ASSOCIATION SCHOOL, BEACH ROAD, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF: C.BHANUMATHY, D/O MADHAVAN, 5/1646, MADHAVA NIVAS, S.V.COLONY, CALICUT-6. BY ADV.SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & C.T.Ravikumar, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- C.M.Appl.No.1317 of 2011 & R.P.No.761 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of October, 2011. ORDER Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. C.M.Appl.No.1317 of 2011 We are satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown having regard to the averments in the affidavit accompanying this application. Same is accordingly allowed. R.P.No.761 of 2011 Heard the review petitioner for admission. The thrust of the contention of the review petitioner is that the judgment sought to be reviewed proceeds on the basis that the trial court had held that the enquiry was vitiated. The review petitioner says that there is no categoric finding by the trial court. For one thing, we do not find any error apparent on the face of the record of the judgment sought to be reviewed. 2. Be that as it may, we have gone through the judgment sought to be reviewed. In the discussions in paragraph 21 of the RP 761/2011 2 judgment, learned Judge had marshelled the entire evidence and held that having regard to the manner in which Exhibit B3 was handled, the plaintiff can legitimately contend that she was under the bonafide impression that the proceedings was not closed and she will be called on to give evidence on her side. The trial Judge had specifically held that there was denial of opportunity and the enquiry proceedings was not proper. The trial court refused to grant the relief on a different footing. In this view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the application for review. In the result, the review petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge) (C.T.Ravikumar, Judge) tkv