IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2010 / 21ST JYAISTHA 1932 RP.No. 475 of 2010() IN C.R.P.NO.583 OF 2009 -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN CRP.583/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER: -------------------------------- KUNJAN SIVARAMAN, THERUVATHIL,KEYYOOR,BHARANANGANAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.I.ABDUL SALAM RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. MARIAMMA JOSEPH,W/O.LATE JOSEPH, KANJIRATHUM KUNNEL,KAYYOOR P.O. 2. ACHAMMA CHANDY,D/O.LATE JOSEPH, MADATHIL HOUSE,ULLANADU P.O. 3. SISTER:TESSY MARIA,S.A.B.S., C/O.MOTHER SUPERIOR,ADERATION CONVENT, MUTTOM P.O.,IDUKKI. 4. K.J.MICHEL,S/O.MARIAMMA JOSEPH, KANJIRATHUM KUNNEL,KEYYOOR,P.O., (RETD.TEACHER,ST.SEBASTIAN HIGH SCHOOL,KADANADU). 5. GEORGE JOSEPH,S/O.MARIAMMA JOSEPH, KANJIRATHUM KUNNEL,KEYYOOR P.O., (PRINCIPAL,ST.GEORGE HIGH SCHOOL, ARUVITHURA). 6. THANKAMMA,W/O.P.J.SEBASTIAN, PULIMMOOTTIL HOUSE,THOONILAVU P.O.,KOTTAYAM. 7. JESSY,W/O.N.L.JOSEKUTTY, NEDIYAKALA,CHERUVENDOOR P.O.,KOTTAYAM. 8. LITTY,W/O.SEBASTIAN MATHEW, GANAPATHY PLACKAL,POOVARANI P.O.,KOTTAYAM. RP.NO.475/10 9. ELACHI LAKSHMI,PULIMACKAL, KOLLAPPALLY,KADANADU. 10. KUNJAN SANKARAN, KIZHAKKETHERUVATHIL,MELUKAVUMATTOM. 11. PAPPY,S/O.KUNJAN GOVINDAN, KIZHAKKETHERUVATHIL,KARUMANNU. 12. ELACHI PARU,W/O.NEELAKANTAN, KARIMKUNNAM. 13. ELACHI GOURI,W/O.O.NARAYANAN, THANNICKAL HOUSE,UPPUTHARA,AYYAPPANKOVIL. 14. GOVINDAN GOPALAN, KIZHAKKETHERUVATHIL,KIZHAKKUMATTOM, BHARANANGANAM. 15. GOVINDAN KUTTAPPAN, KIZHAKKETHERUVATHIL,KIZHAKKUMATTOM, BHARANANGANAM. 16. KALYANI KUTTAPPAN, VELANKUNNEL,PLASANAL,THALAPPALAM. 17. KUNJUKUTTY MADHAVAN, VELANKUNNEL,PLASANAL,THALAPPALAM. 18. P.K.SARADA, PULIMAKKAL,KADANADU,KOLLAPPALLY. 19. AMMINI KESAVAN, PALACKAL,KADANADU. 20. ALLYAMMA KRISHNAN KUTTY, KUNNUMPURATH,THIDANADU P.O. 21. REMANI ASOKAN, URUMBIL,MEENACHIL. 22. P.K.SUBHA, PULIMACKAL,KADANADU. 23. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- R.P.NO.475 OF 2010 () IN C.R.P.NO.583 OF 2009 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of March, 2010 O R D E R The review petition is filed by the revision petitioner to review the order dated 10.11.2009 dismissing the revision. Challenge raised by the petitioner against the judgment rendered by the Appellate authority under the Land Reforms Act dismissing his appeal impeaching the certificate issued by the Land Tribunal to the predecessor of the respondents in the appeal, by way of the revision under Section 103 of the Land Reforms Act, was declined to be entertained by this Court, and the revision was dismissed. Review of that dismissal order is canvassed by filing the present petition. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner. Perusing the review petition, it is seen, other than a ground that R.P.NO.475 OF 2010 () IN C.R.P.NO.583 OF 2009 2 the petitioner was not heard on the merits of the revision petition at the time of admission, all the other grounds raised relate to the merit of the case. A review petition can be entertained only within the limited scope envisaged by the Rules of Procedure and also law, and it cannot be used for the purpose of re-hearing the case on merits. I do not find any merit in the ground canvassed that the review petitioner was denied of an opportunity to address arguments on the merit of the revision petition when its admissibility was considered by this Court. Admittedly, a suit for redemption filed by the review petitioner for redeeming the property, long before the proceedings before the Land Tribunal, as the mortgagor of the property, had been dismissed. The learned counsel for the review petitioner submitted that after the dismissal of the suit for redemption, there was another proceeding in which the petitioner had claimed for recovery of the property resorting to the provisions of the Agricultural Debt Relief Act, which, however, turned out to be futile. The time taken for prosecution of such proceedings and also for resisting the issue of a purchase certificate in favour R.P.NO.475 OF 2010 () IN C.R.P.NO.583 OF 2009 3 of the predecessor of the respondents under the Land Reforms Act before the Land Tribunal and also the Appellate authority, according to the counsel, can be sought to be excluded under Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act, if ultimately the revision is allowed, after its restoration, in his favour. I do not wish to express any opinion on the entitlement of the review petitioner to seek exclusion of the time for further prosecution of his suit for redemption, which is stated to have been dismissed for default more than two decades ago. The grounds raised in the review petition, and, which, as already stated, mainly relate to the merit of the case of the petitioner are hardly sufficient to enable him to seek a review of the order dismissing the revision. The revision had been dismissed after being satisfied that no interference with the judgment of the Appellate authority was called for in the case. There is no merit in the review petition, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp R.P.NO.475 OF 2010 () IN C.R.P.NO.583 OF 2009 4