Disposed

Vasu and Another v. Ramachandran and Another

Kerala HC6 Oct 2009RP/939/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review petitioners challenged a direction to the Sub Divisional Magistrate to examine Ext.P3 before deciding on a Section 145 Cr.P.C. proceeding. The court clarified the direction was not mandatory and left the decision to the authority considering the pendency of other appeals.

What did the court decide?

Clarification issued regarding the mandatory nature of directing the Sub Divisional Magistrate to examine Ext.P3 before deciding on Section 145 Cr.P.C. proceedings.

Vasu and Another Vs Ramachandran and Another — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2009 / 14TH ASWINA 1931

¶5

RP.No. 939 of 2009()

¶6

-------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.19298/2009 Dated 09/07/2009

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS NO.2 & 3

¶8

¶9

VASU, S/O.KATHU, CHATHAMANGALAM SNDP BRANCH, CHATHAMANGALAM, NENMARA, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶10

APPUNNI, S/O.KUNJAPPU, CHATTAMANGALAM SAMUDAYAM, (CHATHAMANGALAM SNDP BRANCH), MATTAYI HOUSE, CHATHAMANGALAM, NENMARA, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.LIJU. M.P

¶12

RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & RESPONDENT NO.1

¶13

¶14

RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, SECRETARY, CHATHAMANGALAM EZHAVA SAMUDAYA SANGHAM, REG.NO.PKD-TC 36/97, CHATHAMANGALAM P.O., NENMARA VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶15

THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, PALAKKAD.

¶16

SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN GP SRI. P.NANDAKUMAR

¶17

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

V.GIRI, J

¶19

R.P.939/2009 in W.P.(C).19298/2009

¶20

Dated this the 6^th day of October, 2009

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Respondents 2 and 3 in the writ petition have filed this review petition. It is contended that this Court has directed the Sub Divisional Magistrate to pass final orders in M.C.9018/97 after looking into Ext.P3 and that this Court has proceeded on the premise that Civil Court has finally decided the issues between the parties, where as it is actually not so.

¶23

As a matter of law, if the Civil Court has decided the issue between the parties, the Sub Divisional Magistrate is bound by the findings of the Civil Court. But in the present case, it is contended by the review petitioners that there are two Second Appeals pending before this Court between the parties as R.S.A.199/2005 and R.S.A.337/2009. There is a dispute as to whether the subject matter of R.S.A.199/2005 would comprehend the subject matter of M.C.9018/97 as well. Where as the writ petitioner says that the subject matter is different, Review petitioners submit that the same is connected.

¶24

R.P.939/09

¶25

¶26

The direction issued in the judgment was only to the Sub Divisional Magistrate to look into Ext.P3 and pass orders thereon. This he shall do within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is upto the Sub Divisional Magistrate to decide whether the proceedings in M.C.9018/97 should be closed or not, after hearing both sides and after taking note of the pendency of the proceedings between the parties before various Courts. The direction in the judgment which is now sought to be reviewed need not be taken as a mandatory direction to the Sub Divisional Magistrate to necessarily drop further proceedings under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. It is upto the statutory authority to take appropriate decision in accordance with law.

¶27

Subject to the above clarification, Review Petition is disposed of.

¶28

V.GIRI, Judge

¶29

mrcs

Vasu and Another v. Ramachandran and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vasu and Another v. Ramachandran and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner Vs M/S Mathruka Pracharanalayam Ltd. & Ors.

K.Madhavan Pillai Vs Travancore Devaswom Board

K.Piyoose Vs Addl.D.I.G.P.,C.R.P.F.& Others

V.S.Muraleedharan Vs M.M.Prabhakaran and Another

Simi K. Vs a.Shajahan

K.Narayanan Namboodiri Vs State Bank of India and Others