Dismissed

Thumba Muhammed v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 Mar 2014RP/165/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court disposed of a review petition challenging a writ petition dismissal. The Court found the petitioner was aware an earlier related matter was finalized on 13-11-2013, yet falsely claimed it was pending, constituting suppression. Finding no error apparent in the original order, the review petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Interference declined; Review Petition dismissed.

Thumba Muhammed Vs State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/3RD CHAITHRA, 1936

¶5

RP.No. 165 of 2014 (V)

¶6

W.P(C)NO. 30372/2013 OF THIS HONOURABLE COUR, DATED 23-01-2014

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER/WRIT PETITIONER:

¶8

THUMBA MUHAMMED, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.MAMMASSAN, EKKATT MAATTIL NADUKKANDI PARAMBU, OLAKARA POST, THIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673 306.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.P.RAMACHANDRAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, STATE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶12

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR-MALAPPURAM, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676 505.

¶13

3. THE TAHSILDAR, THIRURANGADI TALUK OFFICE, TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676 306

¶14

4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PERUVALLOOR VILLAGE OFFICE, PARAMBIL PEEDIKA, POST PERUVALLOOR, VIA-VELIMUKKU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673 638.

¶15

5. THE SECRETARY, PERUVALLOOR PANCHAYATH, PARAMBIL PEEDIKA,POST PERUVALLOOR, VIA-VELIMUKKU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673 638.

¶16

6. SUB REGISTAR, THENHIPALAM SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, TENHIPALAM,MALAPPURAM DISTRIC, PIN - 673 636.

¶17

7. SAINABA.A.P., W/O.MOHAMMED, KOORKKAN THADATIL HOUSE, OLAKKARA POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673 636.

¶18

8. JASEENA KAITHAKATH,

¶19

W/O.ABDU SALAM K.P., KAITHAKATH HOUSE, OLAKARA POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 306.

¶20

R1 TO R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.K.RAFEEQ R7 & R8 BY ADV.SRI.K.P.SUDHEER

¶21

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

Msd.

¶23

RP.No. 165 of 2014 (V)

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

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

¶26

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:

¶27

ANNEXURE A1: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN W.P.(C)NO.30372 OF 2013 DATED 23.01.2014. ANNEXURE A2: AFFIDAVIT DATED 20.02.2014 OF THE REVIEW PETITIONER/ APPELLANT EXECUTED IN THE STAMPED PAPER (ORIGINAL). ANNEXURE A3: AFFIDAVIT DATED 20.02.2014 OF THE REVIEW PETITIONER'S COUNSEL (ORIGINAL). ANNEXURE A4: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE CASE STATUS DETAILS, DOWN LOADED ON 24.01.2014 AND ON 30.01.2014 FROM WWW.INDIANCOURTS.NIC.IN(COURTNIC.NIC.IN/KERALA_NEW/ MAIN 2000.ASP) IN HIGH COURT OF KERALA, SHOWING THE STATUS OF W.P(C)NO.23695 OF 2012 (ON 01.24.2014 AND ON 30.01.2014 IN MM/DD/YY FORMAT) AS “PENDING”, EVIDENCING THAT EVEN ON THE DATE OF FILING W.P(C) NO.30372 OF 2013 ON 09.12.2013, AND ALSO ON THE DATE OF PASSING DISMISSAL ORDER IN W.P(C)NO.30372 OF 2013 ON 23.01.2014, THE W.P(C) NO. 23695 OF 2012 WAS SHOWN AS “PENDING” IN THE HIGH COURT OFFICIAL WEB SITE.

¶28

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶34

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

¶35

R.P. No.165 of 2014

¶36

In W.P.C. No.30372 OF 2013

¶37

--------------------------------------Dated this the 24^th day of March, 2014.

¶38

O R D E R

¶39

This Review Petition is filed by the writ petitioner seeking to reconsider the matter, particularly with regard to the imposition of 'cost' for suppression of material facts.

¶40

Interference was declined and the writ petition was dismissed as per judgment dated 23.01.2014, holding that the writ petitioner, who was the 4^th respondent in WP(C) No.23695 of 2012, was very much aware that the said writ petition was not

¶41

pending (as the same was finalised as early as on 13.11.2013, after hearing both the sides, including the present writ petitioner, who was 4^th respondent as mentioned above, represented through another learned lawyer). This fact was virtually suppressed in the writ petition. The present case mooted by the review petitioner, through another lawyer, is that, as borne by Annexure A4, the details obtained from the Website of the High Court of Kerala, as to the case status showed that the matter was

¶42

R.P. No.165 of 2014 In W.P.C. No.30372 OF 2013 2

¶43

pending even after 13.11.2013 and hence there is no suppression.

¶44

The proposition mooted by the review petitioner does not appear to be attractive, in so far as the review petitioner is not a stranger, as he was very much a party to the proceedings and was represented through a lawyer, when WP(C) No. 23695 of 2012 was finalised as per judgment dated 13.11.2013. This being the position, it was very much obligatory for the writ petitioner to have revealed as to the fate of the earlier proceedings. On the other hand, the writ petitioner consciously made a declaration in the writ petition that the said writ petition was pending and as such, this Court finds that there is 'no error apparent on the face of the records' to call for review.

¶45

Interference is declined and the Review Petition is dismissed.

¶46

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,

¶47

JUDGE

¶48

Thumba Muhammed v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thumba Muhammed v. State of Kerala

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

M/S Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs the State of Kerala

Prasanth Vs the Authorised Officer

T.B Swamidasan Vs Kerala Water Authority

Latha.K Vs Baby Jan

Rasheed v Vs K.Biju

Abdul Jabbar Koraliyadan Vs K. Biju