Abdul Razak vs Philomina on 24 September, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RP.No. 888 of 2009(E)


1. ABDUL RAZAK,S/O.MUHAMMED,AGED 66 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. PHILOMINA,W/O.MATHEW,KOTTARATHUKUDI
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

 Dated :24/09/2009

 O R D E R
            S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
          -----------------------------
                R.P.No.888 OF 2009
           --------------------------
    Dated this the 24th day of September 2009
     -------------------------------------


                       ORDER

The review petition is filed against the

judgment dated 11/08/2009 passed by this court in

the above writ petition. That writ petition was

filed challenging an order passed by the court

below allowing an application for appointment of a

commission moved by the respondent / plaintiff in a

suit for declaration of title, possession and

injunction. Description of the plaint property was

challenged by the defendant in his written

statement. In the light of the contentions so

raised, plaintiff applied for appointment of a

commission to measure out the suit property with

the assistance of a surveyor. The court below

allowed that application negativing the objections

raised by the defendant. Correctness of that order

was challenged in the writ petition and, after

hearing both sides, as I found no impropriety or

R.P.No.888 OF 2009

illegality in the order passed by the court below

to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this

court, the writ petition was dismissed. The

present petition has been filed to review the

judgment so rendered in the writ petition. The

learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

plaintiff is only purchaser of some shares from the

coowners of the property and her remedy is to file

a suit for partition and not to claim declaration

of title as done in the present suit. Whatever

objections the petitioner has against the suit

claim raised by the plaintiff, he can canvass them

in the trial of the suit. A review of the judgment

rendered by the court is not permissible to raise

objections on the merits of a suit or proceeding or

for rehearing the decision already rendered by the

court. Review petition lacks merit, and it is

dismissed.

Sd/-

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,
JUDGE
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE

vdv