IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2011 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1932 RP.No. 200 of 2011(G) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN RSA.1186/2004 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT -------------------------------- CHACKO, S/O. THEKKAMATH VARAPUZHAKKARAN MATHU, KORATTY DESOM, KIZHAKKUMMURI VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.N.P.SAMUEL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- RAMAKRISHNA PADA NARI, S/O. THEKKEDATH KALLIANI AMMA, KADUPPASSERY VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT SUDHARMA, KORATTY SOUTH, KIZHAKKUMMURI VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, KORATTY SOUTH.P.O, THRISSUR - 680 308. BY ADV.SRI. K.S. MENON THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S. SATHEESACHANDRN, J. ........................................... R.P.NO.200 OF 2011 in R.S.A.NO.1186 OF 2004 ............................................. Dated this the 17th day of March, 2011. JUDGMENT The review petition has been filed by the appellant seeking review of the judgment dated 13th January, 2011 by which the appeal had been dismissed. 2. Going through the Memorandum of Revision, it is seen that the grounds raised are essentially grounds for re- hearing of the appeal. Review of judgment is sought for presenting a case that the decision rendered by this Court in the appeal is wrong as the expression given to in the judgment relating to the principles governing the bar of res judicata is not correct. A review petition cannot be converted into an appeal, and the scope of enquiry thereunder is strictly governed by the parameters laid down under Rule 114 and Order XLVII of the Code. I find that the grounds raised in the review petition impeaching the correctness of the judgment are not based on any circumstance referable to the provision stated above. The petition lacks merit, and it is dismissed. S.S. SATHEESACHANDRN, JUDGE. cl : 2 :