IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 954 of 2009(O)
1. E.SUBAIR,S/O.IBRAHIM,
... Petitioner
2. SUBAIRATH,
Vs
1. T.A.JOSEPH,
... Respondent
2. VARGHESE K.V.,
3. M/S.CONFIDENT PROJECT INDIA LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :07/10/2009
O R D E R
S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
R.P.No. 954 of of 2009 in
W.P.(C) No. 13387 of 2009
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated: 7th October, 2009
ORDER
The Review Petition has been filed by the petitioners in
W.P.C.No.13387 of 2009 to review the judgment dated 14th
September, 2009. The Writ Petition, after hearing both sides, was
dismissed. Concurrent findings entered by the two courts below over
an application for interim injunction filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs
in a suit still awaiting for trial, on dismissal of that application, was
challenged before this court in the Writ Petition invoking the
supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. After hearing the submissions of the counsel on
both sides, the judgment was rendered dismissing the Writ Petition.
During the pendency of the Writ Petition, there was an interim order
directing the parties to maintain status quo and that order has to be
restored which otherwise would cause law and order problem is the
main ground canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners for
reviewing the judgment. I do not find any merit in the submission
made. A review is permissible only on satisfaction that there is an
error apparent on the face of the record or such other grounds as
envisaged by law. No party to a proceeding has a vested right to seek
R.P.No.954/09 – 2 –
a review of the order/judgment passed in a petition. There is no merit
in the review petition and it is dismissed.
srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE