Allowed

S.v.P.Pookkoya v. Lekshadweep State Wakf Board

Kerala HC23 Nov 2012RP/1081/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This review petition was filed to correct an error of fact in a previous order of this court regarding the transposition status of a respondent in underlying litigation. The court accepted the petitioners consent to the correction and ordered the replacement of a specific sentence in the impugned judgment.

What did the court decide?

Deletion of the last sentence of paragraph 2 of the order dated 17-07-2012 in C.R.P. (Wakf) No. 191/2012 and substitution thereof.

S.v.P.Pookkoya Vs Lekshadweep State Wakf Board — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/2ND AGRAHAYANA 1934

¶5

RP.No. 1081 of 2012 () IN CRPWK/191/2012 ----------------------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRP(WAKF) NO.191/2012 DATED 17-07-2012

¶6

REVIEW PETITIONER(S):/REVISION PETITIONERS

¶7

1. S.V.P.POOKKOYA, AGED 72 YEARS, S/O.SAYED KOYA, SHEIKINTE VEEDU PADIPPURA, ANDROTH ISLAND, LAKSHADWEEP.

¶8

2. S.V.SAYED MUHAMMED KOYA THANGAL, S/O.ATTAKOYA THANGAL, SHEIKINTE VEEDU, ANDROTH ISLAND, LAKSHADWEEP.

¶9

3. S.V.P.SAYED HASSAN THANGAL, S/O.JAMALUDHIN THANGAL, SHEIKINTE VEEDU, PADIPPURA, ANDROTH ISLAND, U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):/ RESPONDENTS

¶12

1. LAKSHADWEEP STATE WAKF BOARD, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI ISLAND, REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER/SECRETARY, PIN - 682 551.

¶13

2. S.V.CHERIYAKOYA THANGAL, S/O.KOYAMMAKOYA THANGAL, SHEIKINTE VEEDU, ANDROTH ISLAND, U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP, PIN - 682 551.

¶14

RP 1081/12

¶15

3. S.V.SAYED YOUSUF KOYA THANGAL, AGED 71 YEARS, S/O.KUNHIKOYA THANGAL, SHEIKKINTE VEEDU, ANDROTH ISLAND, LAKSHADWEEP, PIN - 682 551.

¶16

R2 BY ADV. SRI.SHYAM PADMAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.A.RANJITH NARAYANAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.K.SAJU R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,SC,LAKSHADWEEP ADMN

¶17

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ.

¶19

R.P.No.1081 of 2012 in C.R.P (WAKF) No.191 of 2012

¶20

.................................................................... Dated this the 23^rd day of November, 2012.

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.

¶23

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties in this review petition. The limited extent to which the matter is pressed for consideration for review is that there is an error of fact apparent on the face of the order, in so far as the last sentence in the 2^nd paragraph of the order sought to be reviewed, is concerned. The parties, through the learned counsel, are also in agreement as to the incidence of such error. The said sentence as it stands in the order sought to be reviewed reads as follows:-

¶24

“During the course of that litigation, he was transposed as a defendant, to be the next senior most member eligible to take over the right of the office then.”

¶25

The 2^nd respondent, who was the plaintiff in the suit

¶26

R.P.No.1081/12

¶27

-2-

¶28

referred to in paragraph 2 of the order sought to be reviewed, was transposed as a defendant even at the trial stage of that suit, it is submitted. His transposition was not in recognition of him being the next senior most member following the death of the 1^st defendant in that suit on 12/06/2009.

¶29

This review petition is ordered deleting the aforequoted last sentence of paragraph 2 of the order dated 17/07/2012 in C.R.P.(WAKF) No.191 of 2012. The following sentence shall stand added as the last sentence of the 2^nd paragraph of the order.

¶30

“During the course of that litigation, he was transposed as a defendant.”

¶31

This review petition ordered accordingly.

¶32

(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN , JUDGE)

¶33

(K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE)

¶34

S.v.P.Pookkoya v. Lekshadweep State Wakf Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.v.P.Pookkoya v. Lekshadweep State Wakf Board

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

Travancore Devaswom Board Vs the Deputy Director for Local Fund Accounts

Jyothy Laboratories Ltd. Vs the Assistant Commissioner (Assmt)

K.M.Joseph Vs District Superintendent of Police, Malappuram

Ithru Haji (Died) Vs Narayanan

Mrs.M.Lathika Vs State of Kerala

M/S. Nagarjuna Herbal Concentrates Vs Kerala State Electricity Board