IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2008 / 19TH POUSHA 1929 RP.No. 314 of 2007() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN RSA.179/2004 Dated 10/11/2006 AS.134/2001 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,KOCHI IN OP. NO.404/1999 ADDL. MUNSIFF COURT, KOCHI .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS/ APPELLANTS IN R.S.A. -------------------------------- 1. M.V.MAIDHILY, W/O LATE ACHUTHAN PILLAI, AGED 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT VELLASSERIL HOUSE, NAYARAMBALAM VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK. 2. MINI, W/O RATHEESH BABU, AGED 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHAMPADY HOUSE, TATA PIPE LINE ROAD, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK. 3. LALI, W/O BALASUBRAMANIAN, AGED 35 YEARS KIZHAKKEVELIKKAKATHU HOUSE, AROOR VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.A.X.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT ----------------------- V.A.JEEVAN, S/O LATE ACHUTHAN PILLAI, AGED 38 YEARS, VELLASSERRIL HOUSE, NAYARAMBALAM, REP. BY HIS WIFE AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MINI. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH EDABATH R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== R.P. No.314 OF 2007 in RSA 179/2004 ===================== Dated this the 9th day of January 2008 O R D E R I had perused the judgment. Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner. The counsel for the review petitioner would contend that the extraction of a sentence regarding admission of receipt of consideration is not correct and it has affected the judgment. Even if it is true I had considered the matter elaborately placing reliance on other evidence adduced as well and had rendered the decision. There is no error apparent on the face of the record in arriving at such a decision. Therefore the review petition lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-