Ramachandran Nair, J.
The review petition is filed by the petitioners 1 to 4, who were respondents 1 to 4 in the writ petition.
2. We heard the learned counsel on both sides.
3. This Court had disposed of the writ petition by judgment dated 21.7.2014. The learned counsel for the review petitioner Sri.M.V.S.Nampoothiry submitted that there is a road separating the property of the impleading petitioner No.2 ( additional 6th respondent) and the Devaswom property. This is a cemented road with 1.5 metres width. Therefore it is submitted that by fixing iron grills in between the pillars of the Nadapanthal in the Devaswom property, no obstruction will be caused to the shop rooms. It is also submitted that certain submissions made by the learned Senior counsel for the additional 6th respondent in the writ petition when the matter was heard were not fully correct. It is submitted that sale of pooja articles were not there for 30 years as claimed since Ext.R5(e) is dated 24.6.2008. It is also stated that the shops have no opening to the Nadapanthal, but there is sufficient opening to the cemented road.
4. Respondents have filed a detailed counter affidavit. It is averred that even before the date of Ext.R5(e) there was sale of pooja articles in the shop by the predecessor. In the judgment sought to be reviewed, this Court has passed orders based on the assurance made before this Court in the counter affidavit, which we have extracted in paragraph6 of the judgment. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board that as far as the residential building is concerned, the assurance was given, but as far as respondent No.6 is concerned, she is having opening to the road.
5. We have elaborately heard the matter. The learned Senior Counsel Sri.Krishnanunni submitted that actually there is no road, but it is only a portion in between the Nadapanthal and the building. It is submitted that it cannot be called as a road at all and if Nadapanthal is put up with grills in that portion, then it will be very difficult for them to get free and sufficient entry into the rooms.
6. We have heard the matter in extenso. It is not clear as to the period when the Nadapanthal was constructed. Of course there may a description in the document showing a 'Theruvu' and one boundary. But on practical terms, what we find from the records that the portion described as road is the gap between the Nadapanthal and the boundary where the shop rooms are situated. During the hearing of the writ petition, it was pointed out that the portion of Nadapanthal is also being used by the parties concerned for business, which we have already directed not to do the same and further directions have been given in the operative portion of the judgment.
7. The respondents have got a case that the auctioneer of Pooja articles is behind the filing of the review petition. We are not going into such disputes. What we find from the judgment is that the direction as already issued by us will not affect the interests of the review petitioners. We have permitted to put up iron grills on the side of the Nadapanthal without affecting the access to the residential house of the additional 5th respondent in the writ petition as well as the additional 6th respondent.
We are not satisfied that there is any apparent error in the judgment. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed.
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE P.V.ASHA, JUDGE sv.