IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 12TH BHADRA 1930 RP.No. 933 of 2008 ---------------------- (AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RSA 545 OF 2008 DATED 21.07.2008 APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT -------------------------------------------- VIJAYAN @ APPU, S/O.ANANDAN, AGED 59 YRS 9/238, KUZHIKKATTIL, THOTTOOR, KAIPATTOOR VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK. BY ADV. VIJAYAN @ APPU (PARTY IN PERSON) RESPONDENT: APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF ----------------------------------------- VILASINI, W/O.PARAMESWARAN, KUZHIKKATTIL HOUSE, KAIPATTOOR (VIA), ARAKKUNNAM, KAIPATTOOR (PO), ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI K.R. MOHANAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: RP 933/2008 in RSA 545/08 1 K.P. BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------- R.P. No 933 of 2008 & I.A. No 1889 of 2008 in R.S.A. No 545 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd September 2008 O R D E R Party who is appearing in person is absent. 2. I have gone through the review petition as also the judgment sought to be reviewed. The ground on which review is sought for is that in order to prove his possession and title over the property he had entrusted certain documents with the counsel appearing on his behalf in the trial court but, however, the counsel failed to produce the same or mark it in evidence on his side before the trial court and it was only when adverse judgments were passed against him that he enquired and came to know that the documents had not been produced and that the failure to produce those documents has resulted in failure to furnish the best evidence and that has resulted in irreparable loss and injury to him. He has also prayed for those documents being received in evidence for the purpose of review of RP 933/2008 in RSA 545/08 2 the judgment passed. 3. I have considered also the additional documents so produced along with I.A. No 1889 of 2008. Document No.1 is electoral identity card of the petitioner issued on 02.01.2001 wherein it is seen that he is aged 44 years as on 01.01.2001. Document No.2 is a photostat copy of page 10 of voters list of Piravom assembly constituency in relation to Edakkattuvayal Panchayat in Kanayannur taluk. Obviously it is not admissible in evidence being a photostat copy and part of a document and conditions for admission of secondary evidence have not been established. Document No.3 is receipt for payment of electricity charges and is dated 18.04.2008. Document No.4 is receipt for payment of telephone bill and is dated 28.11.2007. Document No. 5 is provisional invoice card issued by the Kerala Water Authority and is seen dated 07.02.2007. Document No. 6 is photostat copy of pages 1 and 2 of the ration card issued in the name of the petitioner. It does not bear any date. However, the age of the petitioner is shown as 49. He was 44 as on 01.01.2001 as is evident from the electoral identity card produced as document No.1. If he was 49 on the date of issue of ration card, obviously that was issued in 2006. Document No. 7 is a copy of the application RP 933/2008 in RSA 545/08 3 alleged to have been given by the petitioner to the Secretary of the Edakkattuvayal Grama Panchayat for issuance of a certificate showing ownership of building No. 238 of Ward IX. These are the documents produced along with I.A. No 1889 of 2008. All these documents have come into existence in 2006 and thereafter. The suit was disposed of by the trial court on 30.10.2004 and the appeal was disposed of on 24.10.2007. Obviously the allegation that all these documents were entrusted to the lawyer in the trial court is nothing but utter falsehood as the documents could not have been entrusted with the lawyer at any point of time before the dismissal of the suit as the documents produced have all come into existence during 2006 and thereafter. Production of documents which were not produced till the disposal of the the suit is not a ground for review of the judgment. This review petition and also I.A. No 1889 of 2008 are dismissed with costs to the respondent who appeared through counsel. Sd/- K.P. BALACHANDRAN Judge 03/09/2008 en [true copy] RP 933/2008 in RSA 545/08 4