ORDER : (P.G. Ajithkumar, J.) This writ petition was disposed of by the judgment dated 19.07.2023. Wife and children of the 8 th respondent filed this review petition invoking the provisions of Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Code). They claimed that they are the owners and in possession of the land involved in the litigation and therefore the judgment rendered in the writ petition, without hearing them, is an error on the face of the record. 2. As per the order dated 03.09.2024 leave was granted to the petitioners to file the review petition. The 1 st respondent alone filed a counter-affidavit. He filed the counter-affidavit together with Annexures R1(a) to R1(aa). In the detailed counter-affidavit, the 1 st respondent raised W.P.(C) No.23626 of 2015 contention touching more on the merits of the claim of the 9 th respondent, the Trustee of Sree Ramanathapuram Grama Devaswom qua the petitioners and not about the maintainability and sustainability of the review petition. 3. The petitioners filed a reply-affidavit. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent, the learned Standing Counsel for the Malabar Devaswom Board, the learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the 9 th respondent. 5. In the writ petition, the 1 st respondent sought a writ of mandamus commanding the Malabar Devaswom Board to initiate appropriate action in accordance with law to re- possess the land belonging to Sree Ramanathapuram Grama Devaswom said to be in the possession of the 8 th respondent. The writ petition was disposed of by issuing the following directions: “i) The 3 rd respondent and the additional 8 th respondent, who are administering Sree Ramanathapuram Grama Devaswom are directed to take appropriate action to retrieve possession of 99 cents of land comprised in survey No.961 in Block No.24 of Palakkad-2 Village belonging to the Devaswom; and ii) The 1 st respondent Malabar Devaswom Board is directed to take appropriate supervisory steps in order to ensure that the 3 rd respondent and the additional 8 th respondent take all legally possible steps to reclaim the said 99 cents of land to the possession of the Sree Ramanathapuram Grama Devaswom.” 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the 8 th respondent does not have any right or title to the property in question and despite noticing that fact, this Court proceeded to issue the aforementioned directions. It is pointed out that the property belongs to the petitioners and when they obtained valid title to and possession over the property, no such direction should have been given without giving them an opportunity of being heard. In the view of the learned counsel owing to such an apparent error the judgment requires review. 7. The petitioners have no case that they are not residing along with the 8 th respondent. Therefore, there cannot be a bona fide contention that they did not have knowledge about the writ petition. But they did not choose to W.P.(C) No.23626 of 2015 appear and raise their contentions. True, such an inaction on the part of the petitioners may not be enough to bind the judgment on them. However, when the rights of the respective parties have not been adjudicated upon or decided in the writ petition, but the Malabar Devaswom Board and the 9 th respondent were directed to take appropriate action to retrieve possession of the property in question, there is no necessity to consider the matter afresh alone. In the judgment, it has been observed specifically that no material was available to decide whether the purchase certificate issued in respect of the said property was strictly in accordance with law. The Malabar Devaswom Board and the 9 th respondent can take action for resumption of the property only by recoursing to the remedies available under law, including invalidation of the purchase certificate claimed to have been obtained in respect of the property in question. Such a recourse is possible only after giving notice to the petitioners, who claim to have title to the property. 8. In the above circumstances, we are of the view that this review petition is liable to be disposed of with the observation that while taking steps in terms of the directions in the judgment dated 19.07.2023 in the writ petition, the Malabar Devaswom Board and the 9 th respondent shall bear in mind the observations made hereinbefore, including that the petitioners shall have the right to raise their contentions in support of their claim.