ORDER

This petition for review has been filed by the petitioners/appellants to review the judgment passed by this Court on 9.5.2006 in S.A.No.166/03 and to allow the second appeal.

2. The main contention that is advanced by the counsel for the petitioners is that the pathway provided under Exhibit A1 partition deed, as per law, cannot be lost by non user and that nobody has a case that the petitioners/appellants are not using the pathway for access to the plaint 'A' schedule property. Plaint 'B' schedule pathway is on the northern side of plaint 'A' schedule property belonging to the petitioners and on the northern side of plaint 'B' schedule property is the property of the respondents. In this context, it is worthy to note that the first respondent, RP 784/06 2 along with one Gopala Pillai Vaidyan, instituted O.S.No.839/82 before the Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam for a decree of permanent injunction in relation to the property on the north of plaint 'A' schedule property belonging to the present petitioners/ appellants. In the said suit, the present petitioners/appellants, who were the defendants, contended that a pathway is provided for them along the northern side of their property