IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2010 / 24TH POUSHA 1931 RP.No. 1069 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN CRP.1830/1994 Dated 12/07/2005 .................... PETITIONER(S): 9TH RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------------- A.V.ABDU,S/O.MOHAMMED,ANTHYOOR VALAPPIL HOUSE,PALLICKAL,NANNAMUKKU P.O,PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND OTHER RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. A.V.ABDUL KHADER,ANTHIYUR VALAPPIL HOUSE, NEAR POLICE STATION,ALANJODE P.O, PONNANI TALUK,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. TALUK LAND BOARD, PONNANI. 4. TAHSILDAR,PONNANI. 5. A.V.KHADEEJA,PALLIKKARA, NANNAMUKKU,PONNANI. 6. A.V.FATHIMA,PADINJARE VALAPPIL, KOKKOOR P.O,PONNANI. 7. A.V.KULSU,NEAR VALAYANKULAM, KOKKOOR P.O,PONNANI. 8. A.V.VEERANKUTTY,ANTHIYOOR VALAPPIL HOUSE, PALLICKAL,NANNAMUKKU P.O,PONNANI. 9. A.V.RUKHIYA,VATTATHUR VALAPPIL HOUSE, CRESENT,KOKKOOR P.O,PONNANI. 10. A.V.IYYACHU,ANAKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PERUMUKKU,ALANJODE,PONNANI. R2 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER BY ADV. SMT. SHAHANA KARTHIKEYAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------- R.P.No.1069 OF 2009 IN C.R.P NO.1830/1994 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of January 2010 ---------------------------------------------------- ORDER Petitioner is the 9th respondent in the above revision. He has filed the present petition to review the order passed by this court disposing the revision on 12/07/2005, with a petition to condone delay of 1537 days canvassing a case that he could not properly instruct his counsel and hence the impugned order happened to be passed in the revision. His brother, one of the legal heirs of the declarent had filed the revision, but he too on account of financial stringency was missing for quite some time and so much so, there was no effective prosecution of the revision is the case of the review petition for seeking condonation of delay and also for reviewing the order already passed by this court. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find no merit in the petition. Petitioner is only a respondent in the revision who had submitted to the order passed by the Land Board. Challenge against the order was raised by his R.P.No.1069 OF 2009 IN C.R.P NO.1830/1994 Page numbers brother, the petitioner, another legal heir of the declarent. He has also now submitted to the order. The reason canvassed by the petitioner for condonation of delay and also for reviewing the order which had been passed on merits by this court on the face of it show that it was after hearing the counsel on both sides. That order is not liable to be interfered with under law. Review petition lacks merit, and it is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv