The prayer in this petition is to review and recall the judgment delivered by this court on 20.10.2011 in W.P.(C) No.27558 of 2006. The writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the electricity line was drawn to the residence of the third respondent (beneficiary) through a public pathway, that it does not pass through any portion of the petitioners' property and that the line was drawn way back on 14.8.2006. The point now raised is that the line is drawn not through the pathway but through the property of the petitioners. It is also contended that the pathway is not a public pathway. Referring to Annexure A2 judgment delivered by the Court of the Munsiff of Payyannur in O.S.Nos.6 of 2007 and 85 of 2007 as also the plan and report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner therein, it is contended that the civil court has in Annexure A2 judgment held that the pathway which is identified and reported by the Advocate Commissioner as the plaint schedule property is not a public pathway. The trial court however accepted the plan and report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner wherein he had inter alia stated that the R.P. No.887/2011 2 pathway to the residence of the third respondent (beneficiary) is through the plaint schedule property. In such circumstances, as the line is drawn through the said pathway and the line was drawn way back on 14.8.2006 and 8 years have passed thereafter, I find no grounds to entertain the review petition. That apart, it is settled law that if a long drawn out process of reasoning is required to correct an order it cannot be done in review by this Court but only by the appellate court. From the grounds raised in the review petition, this Court cannot come to the conclusion that the judgment of this Court is vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record. The review petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps