Heard.

2. The first respondent in C.R.P.No.388/2009 is the review petitioner herein. He has sought for the review of the order passed by this Court mainly on three grounds. The first ground is that the review petitioner was not served with notice in the revision. The second ground is that Order VIIIA inserted by the Kerala High Court is not in the Code of Civil Procedure, after the 2002 amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure, and therefore, the proceedings before the court below and that before this Court are not maintainable. The third ground is that this Court had directed the court below to draw a decree in tune with the order passed by this Court and no opportunity was given to the review petitioner to get the amount due from him, quantified.

3. The petitioner in the CRP has filed a counter affidavit stating that the records of this Court clearly show that notice was served on the review petitioner. It seems that notice has been served as per the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and as per the High Court Rules and therefore, the said ground of want of notice raised by the review petitioner is not legally sustainable.

4. Regarding the argument forwarded by t