IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2009 / 29TH ASHADHA 1931 RP.No. 884 of 2003() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN RFA.94/2003 Dated 03/10/2003 OS.674/1986 of PRL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KUTTAN (S/O. KURIYAKKOOT VELUKUTTY), RESIDING AT THEKKUMPADAM DESOM IN PEECHI VILLAGE, TRICHUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.JAYAKUMAR SRI.T.D.PARAMESWARAN UNNI RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. STANDARD INVESTMENTS, TRICHUR, REPRESENTED BY THEIR MANAGING PARTNER, PAUL, S/O. PULIKKOTTIL JOSEPH, CHITTATTUKARA, ELAVALLIL DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, TRICHUR DIST. 2. MUKUNDAN (S/O. KURIYAKKOOTT KUTTAN), THEKKUMPADAM DESOM, PEECHI VILLAGE, TRICHUR DIST. 3. RADHAKRISHNAN (S/O.KUTTALA VELAYUDHAN), EDAPPALAM DESOM, PEECHI VILLAGE, TRICHUR DISTRICT. 4. LAKSHMI (W/O. KURIYAKKOT KUTTAN), TRICHUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.K.PADMANABHAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. == = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Review Petition No.884 of 2003. in R.F.A.No.94 of 2003. = = = == = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 20th day of July, 2009. O R D E R Basheer, J. This review petition is at the instance of the appellant in RFA.No.94/2003 which was disposed of on October 3, 2003. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court had committed grave error in disposing of the appeal without adverting to various contentions raised by the petitioner/appellant especially the one relating to novation of contract. We are afraid the above contention is wholly untenable. The appeal was disposed of after considering the relevant materials available on record and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties. At this distance of time, it will not be open to the petitioner to urge before us that his contentions were not considered. Review Petition No.884/2003. -: 2 :- We have perused the grounds raised by the petitioner in the memorandum of review petition. The scope of review is admittedly very limited and narrow. The appellant cannot be allowed to argue the appeal yet again in the guise of a review petition. There is no merit in any of the contentions raised in the review petition. Therefore, it is dismissed. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE . P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. Kvs/-