JUDGMENT :

S. Manikumar, J.

Materials on record discloses that in an earlier round of litigation, when notices were issued under Exts.P3 and P5, the same was challenged in W.P.(C) No. 1150 of 2004. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, writ court by judgment dated 26.11.2007, ordered thus:

“I am afraid, the reason cannot be appreciated. As held by the Division Bench of this Court in Subaida Sulaiman v. Hamsa [1991(2) KLT 158], mere inadequacy of the price fetched at the sale would not by itself is a sufficient ground to set aside the sale. That apart, it is shocking to note that the petitioner was not even issued a notice. Exts.P3, P5 and the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer referred to in Ext.P3 are accordingly quashed. There will be a direction to respondents to pass orders regarding confirmation of the sale, within one month from the date of production of a copy of the judgment.”

2. Being aggrieved, Tahsildar, Idukki District and three others have filed R.P. No. 421 of 2008 seeking review of the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 1150 of 2004. Observing that no ground for review has been made out, learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Writ Court also obser