IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2009 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1931 CRP.No. 181 of 2009(A) --------------------------------- (AGAINST ORDER IN I.A. 5857/2006 IN OS.NO.323/2000 OF I ADDL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE) .................... REVISION PETITIONER/ PETITIONER IN I.A/PLAINTIFF IN THE SUIT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ P.MADHAVAN NAIR, S/O. CHEROOTY NAIR, RESIDING AT PAYYADI HOUSE, MAYANAD P.O., CHEVAYOOR AMSOM, MAYANAD DESOM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS. MR.V.V.SURENDRAN, MR.P.A.HARISH. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN I.A/DEFENDANTS IN THE SUIT: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD., ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, 3RD FLOOR, CARMEL CENTER, BANERJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682 018, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD., ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, 3RD FLOOR, CARMEL CENTER, BANERJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 3. REGIONAL MANAGER, KERALA STATE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, V.K.KRISHNAMENON ROAD, KALLAI, PANNIYANKARA AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. MR.M.V.THAMBAN. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- C.R.P.No.181 of 2009 - A --------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of June, 2009 O R D E R This revision is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.323/2000 on the file of the I Additional Sub Court, Kozhikode. The above suit was one for money which after trial ended in its dismissal. Plaintiff preferred an appeal against the decree and judgment of the trial court before this Court as R.F.A.No.304/2004, which, it is stated, was allowed setting aside the dismissal of the suit and remitting the case for fresh disposal subject to some directions. After such remission the suit was again tried on its merits which too ended in its dismissal. Plaintiff thereupon moved an application under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC advancing a case that there was an error apparent on the face of the judgment itself since specific directions given by this Court in the judgment in R.F.A.No.304/2004 have not been complied with. The learned Sub Judge after considering the review application found no merit in that application and it was dismissed. Impeaching the correctness of that order passed in the review petition, petitioner has preferred this revision. C.R.P.No.181 of 2009 - A 2 2. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. 3. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the order passed by the learned sub Judge which is impugned in the revision, I find no impropriety or illegality in the order warranting exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court. The grounds canvassed by the petitioner that the directions given by this court in its judgment in R.F.A.No.304/2004 have not been complied with were found to be of no merit by the learned Sub Judge, who has observed that judgment was rendered complying with the direction. Whatever challenges the petitioner/plaintiff had against the dismissal of the suit in the given facts of the case, required to be agitated by way of an appeal as provided by law. The revision is devoid of any merit and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-