SADASIVAN Vs. DEEPU RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayers in the above Review Petition are as follows:

(2.) Heard Sri.P.Vijayakumar, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner/third party, Sri.G.Sudheer Karakonam, learned counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent/writ petitioner and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Sr.Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents 2 to 4.

(3.) The writ petitioner had filed the abovecaptioned writ petition seeking necessary directions to the respondents for the conduct of the survey and measurement of the subject property, in respect of which he had submitted Ext.P-5 application before the official respondents for conduct of survey and measurement of the property, etc. It was also stated in the writ petition that Ext.P-8 order was also given by the civil court concerned in a suit filed by the writ petitioner's father-in-law for conduct of survey and measurement of the very same subject property. That even inspite of the directions issued by the civil court in Ext.P-8, no effective action was forthcoming from the official respondents for the conduct of the survey and measurement, etc. This Court had then rendered the impugned judgment to ensure the conduct of the survey and measurement of the subject property. It is now stated by the review petitioner that the petitioner had not disclosed in the writ petition that he was additional plaintiff No.3 in Ext.P-8 suit and further that he was bound to implead the review petitioner, who was the defendant in Ext.P-8 suit.