Allowed

T.v.Sasikala v. C.P.Joseph

Kerala HC9 Mar 2012RP/200/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a review petition filed by a third party to the original writ petition. Recalling the judgment dated 12.04.2011, the Court held that since the impugned judgment did not decide on merits and the writ petitioner filed a civil suit regarding the same property, the matter requires hearing on merits to prevent undue advantage.

What did the court decide?

The judgment dated 12.04.2011 was recalled and the review petition was allowed. The writ petition was remanded to the appropriate bench.

T.v.Sasikala Vs C.P.Joseph — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH 2012/19TH PHALGUNA 1933

¶5

RP.No. 200 of 2012 (F)

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN .NO./ IN WPC.12260/2011 DATED 12-04-2011

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER(S):3RD PARTY

¶8

T.V.SASIKALA, AGED 55 YEARS W/O.P.P.VISHNUDAS, RESIDING AT 'VINAYAK',CC.XXXII/1297 NEAR GANAPATHY TEMPLE, VADUTHALA P.O. ERNAKULAM-682 023

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.PRAVEEN HARIHARAN SRI.ASWIN GOPAKUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. C.P.JOSEPH, AGED 65 YEARS

¶12

S/O.PERU, CHEMBAKASSERY, CHEPPANAM

¶13

PANAGAD P.O.,ERNAKULAM DIST,PIN-682 506

¶14

2. THE DISTRICT SUERVEY SUPERINTENDENT, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 030

¶15

3. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR,

¶16

(IN CHARGE OF RE SURVEY COMPLAINANT SETTLEMENT)

¶17

KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DIST-682 030)

¶18

4. THE TALUK SURVEYOR

¶19

KANAYANOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DIST-682 030

¶20

BY ADV. SRI.JOLLY JOHN R2 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.T.LILLY

¶21

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

tss

R.P. NO.200/2012

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES

¶26

A1:- CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 12.4.2011 PASSED IN WP(C) 12260/2011.

¶27

A2:- COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS. 92/2011 FILED BY THE IST RESPONDENT/WRIT PETITIONER HEREIN AGAINST THE REVIEW PETITIONER.

¶28

A3:- COPY OF IA. 790/2011 IN OS. 92/2011 FILED BY THE IST RESPONDENT /WRIT PETITIONER HEREIN ALONG WITH ANNEXURE A2 PLAINT.

¶29

A4:- COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE REVIEW PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE CO-RESPONDENT IN DEFENSE TO ANNEXURE A3 INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION.

¶30

A5:- COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT NO.4472406 DTD. 27.5.2010.

¶31

A6:- COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE TALUK SURVEYOR AS PER PROCEEDINGS NO.S1 4537/09 DTD. 11.11.09.

¶32

A7:- COPY OF IA 1541/2011 IN OS.92/2011 FILED BY THE REVIEW PETITIONERS HEREIN TO DECIDE THE QUESTION WHETHER THE SUIT IS BARRED BY LIMITATION.

¶33

A8:- COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE SENT ON BEHALF OF THE REVIEW PETITIOENR DTD. 2.8.2011.

¶34

A9:- COPY OF THE HEARING NOTICE DTD. 21.12.2011 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶35

A10:- COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE FILED BY THE HUSBAND OF THE REVIEW PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶36

A11:- COPY OF THE OBJECTION FIELD BY THE IST RESPONDENT IN RESPONSE TO ANNEXURE A9 HEARING NOTICE.

¶37

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

tss

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶43

R.P. No. 200 of 2012 in

¶44

W.P.(C).No. 12260 of 2011

¶45

Dated this the 9^th day of March, 2012

¶46

ORDER

¶47

Sri. Jolly John entered appearance on behalf of the 1^st respondent in the review petition and learned Government Pleader takes notice for respondents 2 to 4.

¶48

The review petition has been filed by a third party to the writ petition, stating that the direction given by this Court as per the judgment dated 12.04.2011 in the writ petition has caused much adverse consequences.

¶49

The review petitioner contends that the attempt of the writ petitioner is to claim the property owned and possessed by the review petitioner in a dubious manner and the writ petitioner was never in possession of the property mentioned in Ext.P5, nor is he sure about the actual facts and figures. It is also brought to the notice of this Court in the review petition, that the writ petitioner himself has filed a civil suit as O.S.No.92/2011 before the Sub Court, Ernakulam where an interim order of 'status quo' has also been passed. It is further stated that the survey

¶50

R.P. No. 200 of 2012 in W.P.C. 12260 of 2011 -2-

¶51

conducted was decades back and hence the present attempt is clearly bad by the law of limitation. It is not even saved by Ext.P6 circular, which itself stipulates the cut off date in June 2010, where as Ext.P5 has been preferred only on 11.01.2011.

¶52

After hearing both sides, this Court finds, that though this Court has not decided anything on merit while disposing the matter, no party shall have any undue advantage because of the direction. Had the suit proceedings been revealed before this Court, this Court would have insisted to implead the defendants in the original suit as well or would have relegated the party concerned to avail other appropriate remedy.

¶53

In the above circumstances, the matter requires to be heard on merit. The judgment dated 12.4.2011 is recalled. The review petition is allowed.

¶54

Post the writ petition before the appropriate bench.

¶55

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶56

Kp/-

T.v.Sasikala v. C.P.Joseph

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.v.Sasikala v. C.P.Joseph

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

Ms.Hillwood Furniture (P) Ltd. Vs the Asst.Commissioner

The Peermade Tea Company Limited Vs the Tahsildar (Rr) Peermade

A.K.George Vs Ramarajapremaprasad

V.S.Jyotish Kumar Vs District Collector

The Director General of Police Vs Abdul Rahim O.K

P.Santhakumari Amma Vs the State of Kerala