Sisupalan v. Harshad
Case brief
What is this about?
Review petition questioning a judgment that held a pending civil suit and alleged issue suppression by writ petitioners did not warrant a review, dismissing the plea to review the court said leaving the issue for the District Collector.
What did the court decide?
Review petition disposed of without reviewing the judgment.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/13TH MAGHA, 1937
RP.No. 13 of 2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.17518/2015, DATED 16-10-2015
REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 IN THE WRIT PETITION :
1. SISUPALAN, ALATHAZHIKATHU VEEDU, PANKONATHU CHERRY, THRIKKOVILVATTOM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 110.
2. VIJAYAN, ALATHAZHIKATHU VEEDU, PANKONATHUCHERRY, THRIKOVILVATTOM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 110.
3. BABU, ALATHAZHIKATHU VEEDU, PANKONATHUCHERRY, THRIKOVILVATTOM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 110.
4. RADHAMANI, ALATHAZHIKATHU VEEDU, PANKONATHUCHERRY, THRIKOVILVATTOM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 110.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the review petitioners are entitled to review of the judgment since a civil suit regarding the subject land is pending.
Whether the alleged suppression of material facts by the writ petitioners regarding the pendency of the civil suit necessitates a review.
Whether the issue of illegal occupation of puramboke land requires review in the present petition.
Parties & counsel
- respondent
SISUPALAN AND OTHERS
- petitioner
HARSHAD AND OTHERS
Coram
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court