Manzoor v. Nalakath Saidalavi Haji
Case brief
What is this about?
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE…
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/13TH KARTHIKA, 1938
CRP.No. 164 of 2014
ORDER DTD.27.9.2013 IN IA.705/2012 IN OS.86/2011 OF MUNSIFF COURT, TIRUR
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/6TH PETITIONER:
MANZOOR,
S/O.LATE THAIVALAPPIL MUHAMMED, NEAR TIRUR MUNCIPAL STADIUM, TIRUR P.O., PI N-676 101, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 TO 5:
1. NALAKATH SAIDALAVI HAJI
2. KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD, REP. BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, VYAPARA BHAVAN, KOZHIKODE-673 004.
3. KUNJUMMA, W/O. LATE THIVALAPPIL MUHAMMED
4. JAMEELA, W/O. LATE THIVALAPPIL MUHAMMED
5. NAZER, S/O. LATE THIVALAPPIL MUHAMMED
6. LAILA, D/O. LATE THIVALAPPIL MUHAMMED
7. SALEENA, D/O. LATE THIVALAPPIL MUHAMMED (THE RESPONDENTS 3 TO 7 ARE RESIDING AT NEAR TIRUR MUNCIPAL STADIUM, TIRUR P.O.,PIN-676 101,TIRUR TLAUK, MALAPPURAM DIST)
R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ R2 BY SRI.K.SHIBILI NAHA, SC, KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
msv/
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
C.R.P.No.164 of 2014
Dated this the 4th day of November, 2016
ORDER
When the revision petition came up for hearing today, the
counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that, the prayer in the
petition has become infructuous. So the revision petition is dismissed
as infructuous.
Sd/-
(K. Ramakrishnan, Judge)
//True Copy//
P.A. to Judge
ss
MANZOOR
NALAKATH SAIDALAVI HAJI
KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD
KUNJUMMA
JAMEELA
NAZER
K.RAMAKRISHNAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court