Allowed

Gireesh Kumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Feb 2015RP/94/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a review petition to correct an error where an unrelated decision was cited as binding precedent in an earlier disposed-of judgment. The order directs the Registry to issue a modified judgment incorporating the correct ratio from Asharaf v. Eramala Grama Panchayat.

What did the court decide?

The review petition is allowed, directing the Registry to issue a modified judgment incorporating the decision in Asharaf v. Eramala Grama Panchayat in place of the previously cited decision.

Gireesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/14TH MAGHA, 1936

¶5

RP.No. 94 of 2015

¶6

WP(C) 26399/2014 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN WPC NO. 26399/2014:

¶8

GIREESH KUMAR, AGED 39 YEARS S/O. REGHUNATHAN PILLAI, GAURI BHAVANAM, KOTTAMKARA, CHANDANATHOPE P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, NOW WORKING AT AKTOR, POST BOX NO. 9213, DOHA, QATAR, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SHYNI, AGED 30 YEARS, D/O. SARASWATHY AMMA, GAURI BHAVANAM, KOTTAMKARA, CHANDANATHOPE P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS IN THE WPC:

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,

¶12

LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,

¶13

SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶14

2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH,

¶15

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR,

¶16

KOLLAM - 691 001.

¶17

3. THAHASILDHAR, KOLLAM - 691 001.

¶18

4. KOTTAMKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KUTTICHIRA, PKMC P.O., KOLLAM - 691 001.

¶19

R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.C.K.SHERIN R4 BY ADV. SRI.PRATHEESH.P

¶20

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

mbr/

¶22

RP.No. 94 of 2015

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶25

ANNEXURE A1 : TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION ASHARAF VS ERAMALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH 2013(3) KLT 323. ANNEXURE A2 : TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION MOHAMMED ABDUL BASHEER VS. STATE OF KERALA 2013(3) KLT 86.

¶26

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: - NIL -------------------------------------------

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

mbr/

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

¶31

R.P. No. 94 of 2015

¶32

Dated this the 03^rd day of February, 2015

¶33

ORDER

¶34

Initially, the writ petition was disposed of in the light of the ratio laid down by this Court in earlier cases. While transcribing the judgment, instead of the decision cited by the petitioner in the writ petition, a decision which seems to be unrelated to the issue has been mentioned as the ratio. Under those circumstances, the petitioner filed the present review petition.

¶35

I see an error apparent on the face of the record inasmuch as the judgment having no relevance has been quoted as the binding precedent, instead of the one which actually has relevance. Under these circumstances, the review petition is allowed, directing the Registry to issue a modified judgment incorporating the decision Asharaf v. Eramala Grama Panchayat [2012 (3) KLT 323] in the

¶36

R.P. No. 94 of 2015

¶37

¶38

place of the decision already stood reflected in first paragraph of the judgment.

¶39

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶40

JUDGE

¶41

DMR/-

Gireesh Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gireesh Kumar 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.P.Kumaran Vs State of Kerala

A J John Vs the Thrissur Corporation and Another

Chandrakala Vs Corporation of Cochin

Stanslaus Xavier T.M. Vs Shri. C.v.Nandan

Rosy George Vs State of Kerala

M/S.Indraprastha Beach Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Varkala Municipality