IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 15TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 24TH KARTHIKA 1932 RP.No. 850 of 2010(Y) IN W.P.(C) NO.33632 OF 2009 --------------------- REVIEW PETITIONERS: RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5 ---------------------------------------- 1. ARAVIND SARAG, AGED 69, S/O.LATE V.G.SARAF, IST FLOOR, SARAF APARTMENTS, S.A.ROAD, VYTTILA, COCHIN-682 019. 2. ULLAS SARAF, AGED 67, S/O.LATE V.G.SARAF, IVTH FLOOR, SARAF APARTMENTS, S.A.ROAD, VYTTILA, COCHIN-682 019. 3. ANILKUMAR SARAF, AGED 65, S/O.LATE V.G.SARAF, IIND FLOOR, SARAF APARTMENTS, S.A.ROAD, VYTTILA, COCHIN-682 019. BY ADV. SRI.N.M.MADHU RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS 1,2,6 & 7 ----------------------------------------------- 1. AVINASH V.SARAF, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.LATE V.G.SARAF, RESIDING AT 29/1F, 5TH FLOOR, SARAF APARTMENTS, S.A.ROAD, VYTTILA, COCHIN-682 019. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695 004. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANANGAD POLICE STATION, PANANGAD. 4. ANTONY PANIKULAM, VICE PRESIDENT, GROUP 4 SECURITIES PVT.LTD., 35/257, N.H.BYEPASS, EDAPPALLY, COCHIN-682 024. 5. JOJI, AGED 31 YEARS, NOW RESIDING AT GROUND FLOOR, SARAF APARTMENTS, S.A.ROAD, VYTTILA, COCHIN-682 019. ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM FOR R1 ADV. JIJO PAUL FOR R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI T K VIPINDAS FOR R2 & R3 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.No. 850 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of November, 2010 O R D E R Joseph, J. This Review petition is filed respondents 3 to 5 in the Writ Petition aggrieved by the observation made in the judgment that the petitioner in the Writ Petition is the owner of Flat bearing No.29/1F in the fifth floor of Saraf Apartments. The complaint is that there is a litigation pending as A.S. 177 of 2002. According to the review petitioners, they are not admitting the title and rights of the first respondent over the said flat and they have disputed the same. 2. We heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. There is no need to review the judgment. When we said that the petitioner is the owner of the flat bearing No.29/1F of R.P.No. 850 of 2010 2 Saraf Apartments, the review petitioners need not have any grievance because it is only the case of the writ petitioner that we were essentially setting out. In such circumstances we do not see any reason to review the judgment as such. 4. Accordingly this review petition is dismissed, subject to the observations made above. (K.M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm