IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 20TH MAGHA 1932 RP.No. 1096 of 2010() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN SA.717/1998 Dated 06/04/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): 1ST RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------------------------------- B.BANERJEE BABU, THUNDATHIL VEEDU, KANDALLOOR THEKKUMMURI, ARATTUPUZHA VILLAGE, FROM RAMAMANGALATHU AZHEEKALTHURA MURI, PUTHUPALLY VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH SRI.R.AZAD BABU SRI.P.R.RAJA SRI.P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM) SMT.ASHA CHACKO RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANTS & RESPONDENTS 2,3,5 & 6 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. KANAKAMMA, CHANIAYYATHU VEEDU, AZHIKKALTHURA, ALAPPADU VILLAGE. 2. MURUKESAN, CHANIAYYATHU VEEDU, AZHIKKALTHURA, ALAPPADU VILLAGE. 3. REGHU, CHANIAYYATHU VEEDU, AZHIKKALTHURA, ALAPPADU VILLAGE. 4. AMMINI, CHANIAYYATHU VEEDU, AZHIKKALTHURA, ALAPPADU VILLAGE. 5. SUDARSANAN, CHANIAYYATHU VEEDU, AZHIKKALTHURA, ALAPPADU VILLAGE. 6. SUDARMA, CHANIAYYATHU VEEDU, AZHIKKALTHURA, ALAPPADU VILLAGE. 7. UTHAMMAN, CHANIAYYATHU VEEDU, AZHIKKALTHURA, ALAPPADU VILLAGE. tss R.P. NO.1096/2010 8. B.MOHANDAS, THUNDATHIL VEEDU, KANDALLOORTHEKKUMMURI, ARATUPUZHA VILLAGE FROM RAMAMANGALATHU, AZHEEKKALTHURA MURI, PUTHUPPALLY VILLAGE. 9. BABY, THUNDATHIL VEEDU, KANDALLOOR THEKKUMMURI, ARATTUPUZHA VILLAGE FROM RAMAMANGALATHU AZHEEKKALTHURA MURI, PUTHUPPALLY VILLAGE. 10. M.SUGATHAN, SARADA MANDIRATHIL, VAZHUTHAKKADU, TRIVANDRUM FROM KALLEESWARN, MEENATHU, AZHEEKALTHURA, ALAPPAD VILLAGE. 11. PUSHPAVALLY, CHANIYATHUVEEDU, AZHEEKALTHURA, ALAPPAD VILLAGE. BY ADV. MR.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.BHAVADASAN, J. ---------------------------- R.P.No. 1096 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner seeks review of the judgment dated 06.04.2010 in S.A.No.717/1998. According to the review petitioner, judgment of this court suffers from mistakes apparent on the face of the record. It is pointed out that this court had not properly considered Ext.A2 by which the liability has been acknowledged by the mortgagee. This court has also not taken into consideration in Ext.A3. According to the review petitioner, there is a clear statement admitting the relationship in Ext.A2 as well as in Ext.A3 and this admission of the relationship will extend the limitation for the suit by the mortgagor against the mortgagee. 2. The above contentions are without any merits what so ever. These aspects have been specifically considered in paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 of the judgment. The review petition is without any merits and it is accordingly dismissed. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. ln