IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 203 of 2009(W)
1. ABRAHAM.P.J, S/O. JOSEPH,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. JOSE JOSEPH,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.MATHEWS P.MATHEW
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN
Dated :20/02/2009
O R D E R
K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J.
------------------------------------------------
R. P. No.203 of 2009 in
W. P. C. No.8389 of 2007
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of February, 2009
ORDER
The review petitioner is the respondent
in W.P.C. No.8389/07 and he seeks review of
the judgment passed by this Court in the said
Writ Petition on 09/12/08, allowing the
amendment sought for vide Ext.P4 application.
Advocate Sri.Mathews P. Mathew who appears for
the review petitioner submits that the
judgment allowing the Writ Petition happened
to be delivered only because fraud had been
played on this Court by the counsel for the
petitioner as also counsel for the respondent
and that therefore, review be allowed and he
be permitted to argue the Writ Petition afresh
on merits. What was allowed vide judgment in
the Writ Petition is only an application for
amendment of plaint. By such amendment no harm
R. P. No.203 of 2009 -2-
at all is to be caused and the case brought in
by amendment if at all not true as is alleged
before me by the review petitioner, it is a
matter to be established on evidence and the
correctness or otherwise of the pleading is
not a matter which arise for consideration
while considering the amendment application.
Further, the fact that a lawyer who has argued
the Writ Petition on behalf of the respondent
is not the counsel who appears now for the
respondent filing the review petition and the
new counsel has traced out some more points to
advance arguments resisting the Writ Petition
is no ground for review.
This Review Petition, in the
circumstances, is dismissed.
K.P.BALACHANDRAN,
JUDGE
kns/-