IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2011 / 21ST ASWINA 1933 RP.No. 717 of 2011(O) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT OPC.461/2010 Dated 19/08/2011 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------------- SCARIAKUTTY.V.M., VAYALAPPALLIL HOUSE KANJIRAPPARA P.O., KANGAZHA VILLAGE, CHANGANASSERY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------- 1. PREMA GOPINATHA PANICKER W/O.GOPINATHA PANICKER, KARAKKATTU HOUSE, KANGAZHA KARA, KANGAZHA P.O. 2. MRS.OMANA PRABHAKARAN, D/O.K.K.RAMAN, KARAKKATTU KIDARAKUZHIYIL HOUSE, KANGAZHA KARA, KANGALA VILLAGE. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== R.P. No.717 of 2011 in O.P(C) No.461 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 13th day of October, 2011 O R D E R Interpreting an agreement involved in the suit learned Munsiff held that it is a lease and directed the petitioner to pay the stamp duty and penalty. That order was challenged in this court in O.P(C) No.461 of 2010 on the ground that the said agreement is not an agreement of lease but is an agreement for lease. At the time of hearing it was argued alternatively that the agreement is only a licence. This Court rejected the contentions and upheld the order passed by the learned Munsiff by judgment dated August 19, 2011. That judgment is sought to be reviewed in this petition. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that a reading of the impugned agreement would show that possession of property was given to the petitioner for construction of the building and a lease was to be created in future and hence the agreement in question could only be treated as one to enter into a lease agreement. 3. Learned counsel for first respondent would contend that the said argument was considered by this Court and rejected R.P. No.717 of 2011 in O.P(C) No.461 of 2011 -: 2 :- and hence no question of review is involved. 4. I have gone through the judgment in O.P(C) No.461 of 2010. In paragraph 2 it is stated that learned counsel for petitioner argued that the document in question (Ext.P3) is only an agreement for lease. That argument was considered in paragraphs 3 and 4 and it was held in paragraph 4 that since rights and liabilities are crystalized by the agreement in question (Ext.P3 in the Original Petition) and petitioner is (allegedly) allowed to be in possession and enjoyment of the property for consideration the contention that the agreement is one for lease cannot be accepted. 5. In other words, what is sought to be considered by review had already been raised, considered and rejected by this Court. No other point is raised for review of the judgment. A review is neither an opportunity for a re-hearing nor a substitute for an appeal. Hence request for review could not be entertained. Review Petition is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv