IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 3RD ASWINA 1931 RP.No. 890 of 2009(C) IN W.P.(C).NO.32789 OF 2008 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.32789/2008 Dated 16/07/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER: -------------------------------- RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,S/O.NANGU AMMA, AGED 72 YEARS,KIZHAKKEDATHUPUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, IRAPURAM VILLAGE,KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.PAUL MATHEW (PERUMPILLIL) SRI.P.V.SREENIJIN SMT.K.B.SONY SRI.PRASUN.S SRI.SANU.S.PANICKER SRI.K.T.BOSCO RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT: ------------------------- JOSEPH,S/O.VARKEY,AGED 65 YEARS, KAYYANICKAL HOUSE,IRAPURAM VILLAGE,KUNNATHUNADU TALUK,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV.SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- R.P.NO.890 OF 2009 (C) IN W.P.(C).NO.32789 OF 2008 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of September, 2009 O R D E R This petition has been filed to review the judgment dated 16.7.2009 passed by this Court in W.P.(C).No.32789 of 2008. Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.183 of 2007 on the file of the Sub Court, Perumbavoor. He moved an application for amending his written statement so as to incorporate a counter claim after the entire evidence was recorded in the case. That application was dismissed by the trial court. The writ petition was filed challenging the propriety and correctness of that order. After hearing both sides, the writ petition was dismissed by judgment dated 16.7.2009. The present review petition has been filed for review of that judgment. 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his main grievance is R.P.NO.890 OF 2009 (C) IN W.P.(C).NO.32789 OF 2008 2 that the observations made in the judgment may drastically affect him adversely, in case any adverse decision is passed by the trial court in the above suit. I find no justifiable reason for entertaining such an apprehension. This Court has considered only the entertainability of the writ petition filed in respect of a challenge canvassed by the petitioner against the dismissal of his petition for amendment of his written statement to incorporate the counter claim. No right of the petitioner was adjudicated nor was it a matter in issue before this Court. Whatever observations made by this Court in the writ petition relate to not the merit of the counter claim canvassed, but, only the question whether the order challenged could be interfered with in exercise of the visitorial jurisdiction vested with this Court. I find no reason for entertaining the review petition, and, it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp R.P.NO.890 OF 2009 (C) IN W.P.(C).NO.32789 OF 2008 3