(1.) The review petitioner was the appellant and the respondents were the respondents in RSA No. 503/2008.
(2.) The review petition is filed to review the finding in the last portion of paragraph 7 and the finding in paragraph 8 of the judgment dated 25.05.2015 in RSA No. 503/2008. The review petitioner is mainly challenging the finding of this Court in para 7 of the judgment to the effect that, "the entire complication arose on account of the non -issuance of a fresh certificate of Kudikidappu by the Land Tribunal showing the exact location after the remand" and also that, "the appellant claims right over that portion by virtue of Ext. B1 assignment deed while the claim petitioner claims right over that portion as per Ext. B3 settlement deed. By description, both the properties are same". According to the review petitioner/appellant, the said statements are incorrect and, hence, is an error apparent on the face of the record and in the interest of justice, the said finding has to be corrected in the facts and circumstances of the case. Along with the review petition, the review petitioner/appellant filed IA No. 2548/2015 for receiving Annexures I to VII produced along with the review petition and to the mark the same as Exts. B4 to B10. According to the review petitioner/appellant, on the basis of the documents and the evidence, the question of law raised in the regular second appeal should been answered in favour of the review petitioner that the 2 cents out of the 12 cents in Sy. No. 514/2 of Narakkal Village is available on the northern side of the said property after excluding the 10 cents given to the Kudikidappukaran, the father of the claim petitioner. The said 2 cents is now shown as 'H' plot in the partition in OS No. 100/1996. Hence, according to the review petitioner/appellant, as there is mistake apparent on the face of the record, in the interest of justice and in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is only just and proper to review the judgment dated 25.05.2015 in RSA No. 503/2008 and allow the RSA. Hence, the review petition.
(3.) Arguments have been heard.