IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 12TH JULY 2007 / 21ST ASHADHA 1929 RP.No. 348 of 2007() ------------------------------ (AGAINST JUDGMENT DTD. 15/10/2005 IN A.S.515/1999) REVIEW PETITIONER:RESPONDENT NO.1: ------------------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SHYSON P.MANGUZHA RESPONDENTS: APPELLANT AND 2ND RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. T.H.EBRAHIM KAREEM,MANAGING PARTNER, T.H.IBRAHIM KAREEM & COMPANY. M.G.ROAD,WEST FRONT,THRISSUR. 2. K.U.JOSE,TOWN FIRKA REVENUE INSPECTOR,THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.N.ANIL KUMAR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/07/2007 ALONG WITH R.P.NO.377 OF 2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.Nos.348 & 377 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 12th July, 2007 ORDER Mr.N.Anilkumar, learned counsel for the 1st respondent is not turning up before this court though these Review Petitions were posted on several occasions. The ground that the 2nd respondent in the appeal who has been fastened with personal liability under my judgment has not been heard before I decided the appeal has some appeal. The Government Pleader also submitted before me that the District Collector had not taken any decision on the 2nd respondent's request that arrangements be made to have the 2nd respondent represented through the Government for defending the 2nd respondent. Under these circumstances, I recall my judgment to the extent it relates to the 2nd respondent. Post the appeal before the appropriate court after one month. The Review Petitions are allowed to the above extent. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE