Disposed

M.K.Hamsa,(Died),Ayisha and Another v. Hindustant Petroleum Corporation Ltd. &

Kerala HC11 Sept 2012RP/741/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Kerala High Court disposed of a Review Petition where the petitioner sought correction of an erroneous observation in the headnote of an original 1997 judgment. The Court substituted the statement that the suit was 'decreed' with 'dismissed', aligning the text with the operative portion of the judgment that barred the claim on limitation grounds.

What did the court decide?

The observation in the judgment stating 'the suit was decreed against the petitioner' was deleted and substituted with 'it is submitted that the suit was dismissed'.

M.K.Hamsa,(Died),Ayisha and Another Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/20TH BHADRA 1934

¶5

RP.No. 741 of 2011 (J) IN OP/1563/1992

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP.1563/1992 DATED 18-07-1997

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/2ND PETITIONER AND LEGAL HEIRS OF THE 1S:

¶8

1. M.K.HAMSA,(DIED), THACHARAKKAL HOUSE, TOWN HALL ROAD, THALASSERY.

¶9

2. AYISHA, THACHARAKKAL HOUSE, CHIRKKARA.P.O., THIRUVANGAD, THALASSERY

¶10

KANNUR, REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER T.MUHAMMED, S/O. HAMSA

¶11

THACHARAKKAL HOUSE, CHIRAKKARA.P.O., THIRUVANGAD KANNUR.

¶12

3. T. MUHAMMED S/O. HAMSA, RESIDING DO-

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN

¶14

RESPONDENT(S):

¶15

1. HINDUSTANT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD & TATA ROAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 031, REP. BY ITS DIVISINAL MANAGER.

¶16

2. K.M.GAFFOOR, S/O. ABDUL HAMEED, EDAVALATH HOUSE, MAHE(DIED)

¶17

3. K.E. REHMATH, W/O. G.M.ABDUL GAFOOR, REGINAS, NEAR MAHE BRIDGE, NEW MAHI.P.O. KANNUR DISTRICT-673311.

¶18

4. K.E. NOUSHAD, S/O. G.M.ABDUL GAFFOOR, RESIDING DO-

¶19

5. K.E. REGINA, D/O. G.M.ABDUL GAFOOR, RESIDING DO-

¶20

6. K.E. REESHA, D/O. G.M.ABDUL GAFOOR, RESIDING DO-

¶21

RP.No. 741 of 2011 (J) IN OP/1563/1992

¶22

7. T. ABDUL RAHIM, S/O. HAMSA, B HOUSE, NEAR CHERUPOST, CHOVVA, KANNUR DISTRICT-670006.

¶23

8. T. SUBAIDA, HIJAS, KANNUKKARA.P.O., KOZHIKODE-673304.

¶24

9. T. RUKHIYA, ARAFANA, S.S. ROAD, CHIRAKKARA, THALASSERY-670101.

¶25

10. T. BASHEER, THACHARAKKAL HOUSE, CHIRAKKARA.P.O., THALASSERY-670101.

¶26

11. T. AMINA, RESIDING DO-DO-

¶27

12. T. ABDUL SAMMAD, RESIDING DO-

¶28

13. T. FIROS, RESIDING DO-

¶29

14. T. HARIAS, RESIDING DO-

¶30

15. T. ANUS, RESIDING DO-

¶31

16. T. SHABANA, RESIDING DO-

¶32

BY ADVS. E.K. NANDAKUMAR FOR R1

¶33

P.G.RAJAGOPALAN FOR R2

¶34

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶35

RP.No. 741 of 2011 (J) IN OP/1563/1992

¶36

APPENDIX

¶37

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:

¶38

ANX.1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OS 4.1984 OF SUB COURT,MAHE.

¶39

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

¶44

--------------------------------------------------

¶45

Review Petition No.741 OF 2011 in

¶46

O.P.No.1563 Of 1992

¶47

--------------------------------------------------

¶48

DATED THIS THE 11^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2012

¶49

ORDER

¶50

This Review Petition is filed by the legal heirs of the first petitioner in the Original Petition, namely late Shri M.K.Hamsa. The Original Petition was disposed of by judgment dated 18.7.1997. In the first paragraph of the judgment, while mentioning about the judgment in O.S.No.4/84 of Sub Court, Mahe, this Court recorded as follows:

¶51

“It is submitted that the suit was decreed against the petitioner.”

¶52

It is explained that Shri M.K.Hamsa was the 3^rd

¶53

defendant in the suit. Annexure -1 is the copy of the judgment of the court below. The learned counsel submitted that the operative portion of the judgment will show that the suit was dismissed, mainly, as it was barred by limitation. Therefore the learned counsel seeks for deleting the observation made in the judgment that “the suit was decreed against the petitioner”.

¶54

Heard the respondents.

¶55

R.P.NO.741/11

¶56

-2-

¶57

Evidently, going by the judgment, the suit was dismissed where the deceased husband of the petitioner was the 3^rd defendant. Therefore the observations in the first part of the judgment that the suit was decreed against the petitioner is modified and it is substituted as follows:

¶58

It is submitted that “the suit was dismissed”.

¶59

The Review Petition is disposed of as above.

¶60

Sd/-( T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR , JUDGE)

¶61

dsn

M.K.Hamsa,(Died),Ayisha and Another v. Hindustant Petroleum Corporation Ltd. &

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.K.Hamsa,(Died),Ayisha and Another v. Hindustant Petroleum Corporation Ltd. &

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

P.G.Raghavan Pillai Vs P.J.Thomas

Saramma Joseph & Others Vs State of Kerala

M.Vijayakumaran Vs the Green Channel Clearance Committee

The Manager, Higher Secondary Vs Sri.M.Sivasankar

Baisil Attipetty @ Basil.a.G Vs K. Velayudhan

K.Muhammed Ashaf Vs the District Collector, Trivandrum