IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2008 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1930 RP.No. 448 of 2008(D) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.8020/2004 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN THE WPC -------------------------------------------------------- MANI ALIAS SUBRAMANIYA IYER, S/O.VENKITESWARA IYER, RESIDING AT AGRAHARAM, NALLEPPALLY VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. C.V.PARVATHY AMMAL, W/O.LATE RAMAKRISHNAN, F4, GOPAL VILLA, 50/24, AMIRJAN STREET, CHOOLAIMEDU, CHENNAI-94. 2. R.GIRI, F4, GOPAL VILLA, 50/24, AMIRJAN STREET, CHOOLAIMEDU, CHENNAI-94. 3. R.SURESH, S/O.LATE RAMAKRISHNA IYER, F4, GOPAL VILLA, 50/24, AMIRJAN STREET, CHOOLAIMEDU, CHENNAI-94. 4. R.AMRITHA, W/O.LATE V.RAMAKRISHNA IYER, 50/24, AMIRJAN STREET, CHOOLAIMEDU, CHENNAI-94. 5. R.JAYANTHI, D/O.LATE V.RAMAKRISHNAN, 50/24, AMIRJAN STREET, CHOOLAIMEDU, CHENNAI-94. 6. RANGAN ( EXPIRED) S/O VENKITESWARA IYER C/O DR.N.V.R. PRABHU @ PLOT NO. 3977 ANNANAGAR, CHENNAI BY ADV.SRI.T.K.ABRAHAM THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.No.448 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of May, 2008 ORDER Sri.T.K.Abraham, counsel for the 6th respondent is absent. A review of my judgment is sought on the ground that the statement which was made by the counsel for the 6th respondent on 7/8/2007 that the Commissioner had conducted auction and that the property was purchased by the 6th respondent for a sum of Rs. 2lakhs even prior to 11/11/2008 was wrong. Annexure 5 is relied on to show that the statement of the counsel for the 6th respondent on 7/8/2007 could not have been correct. But it is seen from the judgment that the order was passed after hearing the counsel for the review petitioner also. Ultimately the judgment has been rendered not on merits but on the ground that the writ petition has become infructuous. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even now the writ petition cannot survive since the final decree application in which the impugned order was passed has been dismissed. I therefore reiterate the judgment dismissing the writ petition as infructuous making it clear that it will R.P.No.448/08 2 be open to the review petitioner to agitate the question whether the sale in question had attained finality in further proceedings between the parties. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. R.P.No.448/08 2