IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 1ST OCTOBER 2010 / 9TH ASWINA 1932 RP.No. 820 of 2010(G) ------------------------------- [THE JUDGEMENT IN RSA.903/2005 DATED 19/08/2010] .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS/APPELLNATS: ------------------------------------------------------ 1. AKHILA KERALA VISWAKARMA MAHASABHA NO.454,THOTTAKAM BRANCH,MANIKKAMANGALAM.P.O. 2. AKHILA KERALA VISWAKARMA MAHASABHA NO.454,REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT N.VIJAYAN, S/O.NARAYANAN,NETTIKKATTU VEEDU,PULIYELIPADIKARA, METTOOR VILLAGE. 3. AKHILA KERALA VISWAKARMA MAHASABHA, NO.454,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,A.N.SHAJI, S/O.NEELAKANDAN,AIKKARAMANASSERI (AGRAMANI), THOTTAKAM KARA,METTOOR VILLAGE. BY ADVS. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN, SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------- NEELAKANDAN,S/O.AIKKARAMANASSERY (AGRAMANI)KUNJAN,RESIDING AT NARANGAPARAMBIL, THOTTAKAM KARA,METTOOR,MANICKAMANGALAM,P.O. KALADY,ALUVA TALUK. BY THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/10/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ RP No.820 of 2010 in RSA No.903/05 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated 1st October 2010 Order By this Review Petition, the petitioner seeks to have the judgment dated 19.08.2010 in RSA No.903/05, reviewed. 2. The grievance raised by the petitioner is that in paragraph 20 of the judgment, this Court has mentioned that “it is too much to say that merely because of those recitals, the two cents which was redeemed by the mortgagor, could not be on the eastern side.” According to the petitioner, it should have been on the northern side and not on the eastern side, as has been found by this Court. Further, it is pointed out that the documents produced by him, have not been properly considered by this Court. On the above grounds, the petitioner seeks a re-hearing of the matter. RP 820/10 2 3. The prayer of the petitioner essentially is for a re-hearing of the matter, which is not permissible under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC. This RP is without merits and it is accordingly dismissed. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta RP 820/10 3