IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2009 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 RP.No. 1181 of 2009(W) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.8225/2009 Dated 18/03/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS 4 & 5 IN WPC ---------------------------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.4061, KADUTHURUTHY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE PRESIDENT, REGIONAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.4061, KADUTHURUTHY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS 1 & 2 & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN WPC ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. LALITHA MURALEEDHARAN, AGED 55 YEARS, W/O.LATE MURALEEDHARA MENON, VADEKKE ANISSERIL, VELLASSERY, KADUTHURUTHY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. LAVANYA, AGED 21 YEARS, D/O.LATE MURALEEDHARA MENON, VADEKKE ANISSERIL, VELLASSERY, KADUTHURUTHY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. THE SECRETARY TO CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.TOM JOSE (PADINJAREKARA) FOR R1 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= R.P. No. 1181 of 2009 in W.P.(C) No. 8225 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 16th day of December, 2009 O R D E R This petition is filed by respondents 4 and 5 in the writ petition. This is essentially a petition for hearing the writ petition. The judgment sought to be reviewed was delivered, dispensing with notice to respondents 4 and 5 (review petitioners), preserving their right to move for review of the judgment, if aggrieved. 2. The review petitioners had a case in opposite to the writ petition. I, therefore, find it just and proper that they are heard in relation to the writ petition. 3. For the aforesaid reasons, the judgment sought to be reviewed is vacated and the writ petition will stand listed for consideration. Accordingly, the review petition is allowed. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Mn.