IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2010 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1932 RP.NO. 405 OF 2010() -------------------- {IN CRP.18/2010 OF THIS COURT IN IA.1543/2006 IN OS.338/1996 OF ADDL.SUB COURT, KOLLAM} .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONER ----------------------------------------------------- M. VISHNU MOHAN, GOURI NIVAS, THEKKEVILA.P.O, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.ABDUL RAZZAK RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------- 1. VALSALA AMMA, D/O. GOURI KUTTY AMMA, FROM VADAKKEDATH VEEDU NEDUMPANA CHERI, NEDUMPANA VILLAGE, RESIDING AT PONAKATHU, MAVELIKKARA.P.O. 2. K. REMADEVI, GAURI NIVAS, VISNU VIHAR, THEKKEVILA.P.O, KOLLAM. 3. R. VEENA MOHAN, GOURI NIVAS VISNU VIHAR, THEKKEVILA.P.O, KOLLAM. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. --------------------------------------- R.P.No.405 of 2010 in C.R.P.NO.18 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of May, 2010 O R D E R The petition has been filed for review of the order dated 20/1/2010 in C.R.P.No.18 of 2010. After the sale in execution of a decree, challenge was raised by one among the parties, who was a minor during the continuance of the litigation and, then, represented by his mother, that there was no proper appointment of guardian for him and the mother had adverse interest against him. 2. Having regard to the order passed by the court negativing the challenges raised disputing the executability of the decree with reference to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, it was found there was no merit in the revision and consequently the revision was dismissed. 3. Perusing the memorandum of review petition and also hearing the learned counsel for the review petitioner, I find that no ground has been made out for review of the order. In effect, what the petitioner R.P.No.405 of 2010 in C.R.P.NO.18 of 2010 :: 2 :: sets forth as a ground for review relate to the merit of the case, which has already been found unworthy of any value. Review petition lacks merits and it is dismissed. Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge.