Allowed

M.v.Kunhan and Another v. P.Gopinathan and Another

Kerala HC18 Oct 2011RP/963/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a review petition, setting aside only the part of a prior judgment that quashed an application. This was done because the review petitioners, successors to a deceased applicant, were not heard before the quashing order was passed.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the part of the judgment quashing Ext.P1 application; remand matter to Sub Divisional Magistrate for final orders after hearing all parties; dispose of Ext.P1 within six months.

M.v.Kunhan and Another Vs P.Gopinathan and Another — Kerala HC (2011) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 18TH OCTOBER 2011 / 26TH ASWINA 1933

¶5

RP.No. 963 of 2010()

¶6

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.12579/2010 Dated 21/06/2010

¶8

REVIEW PETITIONER(S): NOT PARTY TO WP & SUPPL.PETITIONERS 2 & 3 IN CMP 41/02 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, TIRUR.

¶9

¶10

M.V.KUNHAN, S/O.PANGU, AGED 56 YEARS, RESIDING IN PALLIKKARA AMSOM, VADAKKUM MURI DESOM, NANNAMUKKU, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

ADIMA, S/O.CHEMBAN,

¶12

AGED 59 YEARS, R/AT -DO- -DO-

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN

¶14

SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH

¶15

RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & RESPONDENT IN CMP 41/02)

¶16

¶17

P.GOPINATHAN, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.LATE K.KRISHNAN NAIR, PALAKKAT HOUSE, P.O.MOOKKUTHALA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶18

PIN-679 101.

¶19

THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. PIN-679 101.

¶20

ADV. SRI.JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY FOR R1

¶21

SRI.ANIL GEORGE FOR R1 SRI.K.S.SUMEESH FOR R1

¶22

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ROY THOMAS

¶23

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶25

= = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.No.963 of 2010 in W.P.(c) No.12579 of 2010

¶26

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 18th day of October, 2011

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The petitioners, who were not parties to W.P.(c) No.12579 of 2010 seek to review the judgment dated 21.06.2010 in the said writ petition as per which this Court quashed Ext.P1 petition purportedly filed under Section 142 Cr.P.C by one Udarappan. This Court proceeded on the premise that after the death of Udarappan sometime in the year 2007 nobody had taken up the cause in Ext.P1 application.

¶29

A perusal of the files shows that on the death of Udarappan, the 1^st review petitioner namely Kunhan was impleaded on 22.04.2008 and thereafter the review petitioners namely Kunhan and Adima were shown as the petitioners before the R.D.O. The wife and son of the respondent herein (the writ petitioner), were also impleaded on 5.8.2008 on the ground that the property had been transfered to the writ petitioner's wife and son. Subsequently, notice was ordered to the wife and son of the writ petitioner. On receipt of notice the wife and son filed

¶30

R.P.No.963of 2010

¶31

¶32

a denial statement on 06.01.2009 styling themselves as C.Ps 2 and 3. That statement was taken on file. Thereafter the case was adjourned several times for taking the evidence of the petitioners therein namely Kunhan and Adima. It was at that stage that the writ petitioner approached this Court.

¶33

I heard both sides. When the review petitioners were impleaded and allowed to prosecute Ext.P1 application after the death of the original applicant (Udarappan), they had a right to continue the proceedings to a logical end. This Court by quashing Ext.P1 application behind the back of the review petitioners was virtually interfering with their right to prosecute Ext.P1 application. Since they were not heard by this Court, the review petitioners are entitled to treat the judgment against him as null and void.

¶34

4.Hence that part of the judgment dated 21.06.2010 which has quashed Ext.P1 application is set aside and the review petition is allowed to this limited extent. At this stage, I am not inclined to go into the merits of the controversies between the review petitioners and C.Ps 2 and 3 namely the wife and son of the original respondent before the R.D.O. The R.D.O shall pass

¶35

R.P.No.963of 2010

¶36

¶37

final orders in accordance with law, after giving both sides an opportunity of being heard.

¶38

Ext.P1 application shall be disposed of expeditiously and at any rate within six months of receipt of records by the R.D.O. and such disposal shall be untrammeled by the observations on the merits in the judgment dated 21.06.2010 in the writ petition to which the review petitioners were not parties.

¶39

This review petition is disposed of as above.

¶40

Dated this the 18^th day of October, 2011.

¶41

V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE

¶42

M.v.Kunhan and Another v. P.Gopinathan and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.v.Kunhan and Another v. P.Gopinathan and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Haneesh Mohan Vs State of Kerala

Suresh and Others Vs State of Kerala

Saidalavi Vs State of Kerala

Shine Vs the State of Kerala, Rep. by the Deputy

K.K.Ali Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Suresan @ Suresh Vs State of Kerala