Sinimole Chirayath (Minor) v. The Manager
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/31ST BHADRA, 1937 RP.No. 610 of 2015 () IN Ex.FA.49/2014 ---------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN Ex.FA 49/2014 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 19-02-2015 REVIEW PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS:
--------------------------------------------------------
1. SINIMOLE CHIRAYATH (MINOR), AGED 17 YEARS D/O.VARGHESE, CHIRAYATH THRISSURKKARAN HOUSE THALORE DESOM, THRIKKUR VILLAGE MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK.(MENTALLY RETARDED) REPRESENTED BY NEXT FRIEND AND SISTER, KUNJUMOLE, AGED 24, D/O.VARGHESE, CHIRAYATH, THRISSURKKARAN HOUSE THALORE DESOM, THRIKKUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK.
2. KUNJUMOLE, AGED 24 YEARS D/O.VARGHESE, CHIRAYATH THRISSURKKARAN HOUSE THALORE DESOM, THRIKKUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALK. BY ADVS.SRI.V.M.KURIAN SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN SRI.K.T.THOMAS RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
------------------------------------------------
1. THE MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, PUDUKKAD BRANCH, THRISSUR PIN-680 301.
2. VARGHESE, CHIRAYATH, CHIRAYATH THRISSURKKARAN HOUSE THALORE DESOM, THRIKKUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK PIN-680 306.
3. SHYNI, W/O.VARGHESE, CHIRAYATH, THRISSURKKARAN HOUSE THALORE DESOM, THRIKKUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK PIN-680 306.
R1 BY SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH, SC, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
VPV
P.N.RAVINDRAN & ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JJ.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= R.P.No.610 of 2015 in EX.F.A.No.49 of 2014 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2015
ORDER
P.N.Ravindran, J.
The prayer in this application is to review and recall the judgment delivered by us on 19.2.2015 dismissing Ex.F.A.No.49 of 2014. The grounds raised have been elaborately considered by us in the judgment delivered on 19.2.2015. After hearing learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and on going through the impugned judgment, more particularly, the findings and observations in paragraph 12 thereof, we are not satisfied that the petitioners have made out a case for review. What the petitioners seek under the guise of a review is really a re-hearing which is impermissible. Everyone of the contentions now put forward were considered and rejected by the impugned judgment. We therefore find no good grounds to entertain the review petition. It fails and is accordingly dismissed in limine. Sd/- P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE Sd/- ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE /true copy/ P.A. To Judge vpv