IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2008 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1930 RP.No. 349 of 2008(A) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN RSA.498/2007 Dated 26/07/2007 .................... PETITIONER/2ND RESPONDENT IN R.S.A. ----------------------------------------------- ABRAHAM M,S/O. IYPE IDIKKULA MADAPLETHU THEKKETHIL, ERATHU MURI VENMONY VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.ASHOK KUMAR RESPONDENTS:APPELLANTS 1 TO 3 & 1ST RESPONDENT IN R.S.A. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. OOMMEN CHACKO, S/O. CHACKO, ELANKATHIL HOUSE, ERATHU MURI, VENMONY VILLAE CHENGANNUR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. GEEVARGHESE JOHN, OF DOO..DO.. 3. VARGHESE KOSHY, ALUMMOOTTIL HOUSE OF DO..DO.. 4. IYPE OOMMEN, SANLARC LABEDI, HILL ON LARI, MICCIM, CANADA. BY THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/03/2008, ALONG WITH RP NO. 351 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== R.P. NO. 349 & 351 OF 2008 =========================== Dated this the 27th day of March, 2008 ORDER These review petitions are filed to review the judgment in R.S.A.496 and 498 of 2007. The grievance of petitioner the second respondent in the appeals is that in paragraph 4 of the judgment it was wrongly stated that pending suit was filed by first respondent when in fact that suit was filed by the second respondent in the appeal. It was also contended that by permitting the appellants to reagitate the claim for the way, rights available to the respondents based on the decree confirmed by this court will be taken away. 2. Learned counsel appearing for appellants admitted that the pending suit was filed by the second respondent in the appeal and not the first respondent and the reference in the judgment as suit was filed by first respondent is a mistake. That factual mistake is therefore corrected. 2 3. While dismissing the second appeal it was only clarified that dismissal of the second appeal will not prevent the appellants from raising their claim in the pending suit based on the southern boundary shown in Ext.A1 and A2. Though learned counsel appearing for petitioners argued that by that observation effect of the impugned judgments will be taken away, it is not disputed that correctness of the southern boundary shown in Ext.A1 and A2 was not considered by either the trial court or the first appellate court. Therefore it cannot be said that by permitting appellants to agitate the question in the pending suit, finding of courts below on that aspects will be taken away. In such circumstance no review of the judgment as sought for is warranted. Review petitions are disposed clarifying that the pending suit was instituted by second respondent and not first respondent as stated in paragraph 4 of the judgment. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006