IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 747 of 2007(F)
1. T.ABDULLA, S/O.AHAMMED KUTTY, AREEKODE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,
3. SECRETARY, FOREST DEPARTMENT,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :29/10/2008
O R D E R
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,J.
------------------------
R.P.No.747/2007 IN A.S.508/2001
------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of October, 2008
O R D E R
Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner is
certainly right when she submits that this court has not taken
into account the circumstance that the contention of the review
petitioner was always that there is no concluded contract, I am
of the view that there is no justification for reviewing the
judgment. I have gone through the judgment of the trial court
also. According to me that judgment is sustainable and
supportable on the evidence which was adduced by the parties.
The petitioner may have grievance. He will have to get that
grievance redressed by invoking regular appellate jurisdiction and
not extremely narrow jurisdiction for review as envisaged by
Order XLVII Rule 7.
The Review Petition is dismissed.
(PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE)
dpk
WPC.No. 2
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,J.
————————
R.P.No.747/2007 IN A.S.508/2001
————————
O R D E R
29th October 2008