IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP No. 65 of 2008(S)
1. K.VISWANATHAN THAMBI, S/O. C.V.KRISHNA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MR. G.THOMAS, S/O. GEORGE, AGED 54,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.SASINDRAN
For Respondent :SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :27/02/2008
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
------------------------------------
R.P.No.65 OF 2008
IN
C.O.C. NO.1358 OF 2007
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of February, 2008
ORDER
This review petition is filed by the petitioner, who is the
petitioner in the contempt case, on the ground that on the date
when the order in the contempt case was passed, the petitioner
could not be present for hearing and therefore he could not
present the correct facts of the case before this Court.
Consequently, the judgment happened to be passed based on the
submission made by the counsel for the respondent. The
petitioner now submits that since the submission made by the
counsel for the respondent was not correct, the judgment may be
reviewed and the contempt case may be re-heard.
2. The learned counsel for the respondent stoutly
opposes the same. According to him, no review petition would lie
in a contempt case.
3. I am of opinion that whether it is a contempt case or a
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in
R.P. No.65/2008 2
appropriate cases, a review petition would certainly lie in this
case. When the judgment was passed, the counsel for the
petitioner was not present. Further on that date his name was
also not shown in the cause list. Therefore the justice
demands that he should be given an opportunity to controvert
the contentions raised by the respondent. Accordingly, the
review petition is allowed. The judgment dated 3.12.2007 in
C.O.C. No.1358/2007 is recalled and the contempt case is
posted for hearing after two weeks.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
Acd
R.P. No.65/2008 3