1. Petitioner has filed this review petition inter alia submitting that there are some mistakes in the facts stated in the judgment dated 22.5.2014.
2. Having regard to the nature of facts submitted, I do not think that there is any necessity to review the judgment as it will not affect the petitioner in any manner.
3. The main complaint of the petitioner is that he is not the owner of the vehicle whereas he is only a hirer. According to the petitioner, on a reading of the first sentence, it indicates as if he is the owner of the vehicle. I do not think so. If he is the hirer and is entitled to get release of the vehicle, the matter is to be considered by the learned Magistrate, having jurisdiction in the R.P.No.394 of 2014 in W.P.(C)No.12606 of 2014 -:2:-
area, in accordance with the procedure prescribed. Hence, there is no necessity to review the first sentence in the judgment. The second contention is with reference to the word stated in the third sentence of the judgment that the excavator was used for filling a thodu. According to him, it was used only for cleaning a pond. The said statement of fact also may not affect the petitioner in any manner. Under such circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with the aforesaid judgment. Accordingly, clarifying the aforesaid facts, this review petition is dismissed.
A.M.Shaffique, Judge.
sl.