IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2009 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1931 RP.No. 261 of 2009(F) --------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.30297/2002 Dated 15/09/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): 3RD RESPONDENT IN WPC ------------------------------------------------------------- M.A.K.THAJUDEEN, M.A.K.MANZIL, PANATEMUKKU, PERUMKULAM P.O., ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN WPC ----------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SUB COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, CHIRAYINKEEZH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VAKKOM. 6. SMT.SULAIKA BEEVI, SHAN MANZIL, ROAD KADAVU, MANANAKKU, PERIMKULAM P.O., ATTINGAL VIA. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. 7. THE TAHSILDAR, CHIRAYINKEEZH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. ADV.MR. THIRUMALA P.K. MANI GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ R.P.NO.261 OF 2009 IN O.P.No. 30297 OF 2002 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2009 ORDER The petitioner in the original petition has sought review of my judgment dated 15.9.2008 in O.P.No.30297/2002 primarily on the ground that the learned counsel for the petitioner was not present and therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner was not able to urge the grounds available. I am not inclined to review of my judgment, in so far as the judgment was on merits, after considering all contentions of the petitioner in the original petition. The petitioner's contention is that the Second Appeal, which was dismissed was not on merits, but for default and pendency of the restoration petition was not brought to the attention of this Court. I am of opinion that even if the restoration petition is pending that would not have any effect on the decision in this case. I am of opinion that the petitioner's remedy lies in challenging the judgment in R.P.No.261/09 2 the original petition in an appeal. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this review petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd