IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 21ST MAGHA 1930 RP.NO. 69 OF 2009(P) ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.25770/2008 DATED 06/11/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S) - 1ST RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------------------- THE COTTANAD PLANTATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, M.P. CHERIYAN, S/O. P.C. POTHEN BEACH ROAD, NAGARAM AMSOM, KOZHIKODE P.B. NO.1117, KOZHIKODE 673 032. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SUJIN RESPONDENT(S) - PETITIONER & 2ND RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M.K. MICHAEL, S/O. K.K. KURUVILA, MALIAKKEL HOUSE, NEENDOOR, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, KOTTAYAM. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P. No.69 of 2009 IN W.P(C) No.25770 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10th day of February, 2009 O R D E R -------------- This petition is filed to review the judgment dated 6.11.2008 allowing I.A. No.3224 of 2007 in O.S. No.321 of 1999 of the Court of learned First Additional Sub Judge, Kozhikode. Petitioner apprehends that some of the observations made by this Court in the said judgment would prejudicially affect its interest while the question of limitation of the prayer incorporated by amendment is being considered by the court below. According to the petitioner, the observations in the judgment sought to be reviewed that “I am inclined to think that it is not as if the petitioner is introducing by amendment something that is totally unconnected with the averments in the plaint, the amendment sought for is based on subsequent events” might be taken by the court below as indicating that this Court has entered a finding that the prayers incorporated by amendment is not time barred. 2. Since the ultimate judgment referred in this petition is not sought to be reviewed, there is no scope for allowing the review. However, I make it clear that the observations quoted above will be confined to the disposal of W.P(c) No.25770 of 2008 by this Court. R.P. No.69 of 2009 IN W.P(C) No.25770 of 2008 -: 2 :- Court below shall consider the plea of limitation if properly raised, untrammelled by the impugned observation. Review Petition is closed with the above observation. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. =================== CRL.R.P. NO. OF 2001 =================== O R D E R DECEMBER, 2008