IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2009 / 22ND SRAVANA 1931 RP.No. 778 of 2009(A) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN CRP.331/2009 Dated 15/07/2009 .................... PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONER: ------------------------- P.L.NAVIS, PROPRIETOR, INDIAN CAPS INDUSTRIES, C/O.M.A.BANKERS, PULLEPPADY JUNCTION, ERNAKULAM RESIDING AT PEYOLI HOUSE, KAKKANADU, COCHIN-30. BY ADV. MR.BABU CHERUKARA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------ 1. THE CANARA BANK, TRIPUNITHURA BRANCH, NADAMA VILLAGE, NADAMA DESOM, KANAYANNUR TALUK, REP.BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER. 2. SOPHY JOHN ERINJERI, 61 YEARS, W/O.LATE JOHN ERINJERY, ERINJERY HOUSE, BEENA NAGAR, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-682 024. 3. SUNILKUMAR, S/O.LATE JOHN ERINJERY ERINJERY HOUSE, DO. DO. 4. MARIES JOHN, S/O.LATE JOHN ERINJERY NIENJWEY HOUSE, DO. DO. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- R.P.No.778 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of August 2009 ------------------------------------- O R D E R The petition has been filed to review order dated 15/07/2009 in C.R.P No. 331/2009. In the memorandum of review petition the grounds canvassed are that some observations made in the judgment of a previous writ appeal were omitted to be brought to the notice of this court when the revision petition was heard and also that while disposing of this revision by order dated 15/07/2009 this court has stated that it was exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 instead of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for invoking the powers under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC to review the previous order. After going through the order passed by R.P.No.778 OF 2009 Page numbers this court which is ought to be reviewed with reference to the memorandum of review petition and also the submission made by the counsel, I find, no ground is made out to review the previous order. Review petition lacks merit, and it is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv