IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2010 / 27TH ASWINA 1932 RP.No. 858 of 2010(F) ------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN RFA.418/2005 Dated 03/08/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT ----------------------------------------- MADHAVAN, S/O.RAMAN, KAREPARAMBIL HOUSE, NATIKA BEACH.P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 572. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ---------------------------------- SHELLY, S/O.MADHAVAN, KOZHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KAIPAMANGALAM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR, NOW RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.55-A, WARD NO.16, GANDHIGRAM, IRINGALAKUDA-680 121. BY ADV. SRI. P.V. CHANDRA MOHAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P. 858 OF 2010 IN R.F.A. NO. 418 OF 2005 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 19th day of October, 2010 O R D E R This review petition is filed with a prayer to change the Commissioner as well as to reduce the amount of deposit and also for refund of Court fee. So far as the appointment of Commissioner is concerned since the Commissioner has already inspected the property and just because a complaint has been filed it is not a ground to change him. If he is not doing the work properly there are always remedies open to the parties to place it before Court for redressal of their grievances. So also regarding the deposit of the amount I find that it is necessary for the reason that after giving the property the person to whom it is given is deprived of taking any income from the property. R.P. 858 OF 2010 IN R.F.A. NO. 418 OF 2005 -:2:- So on this ground the judgment does not require any review. Since I have remanded the case I direct that refund of full Court fee be allowed. The Review Petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/- [true copy] P.A. To Judge.