High Court of Kerala rejected a review petition in a restricted civil appeal where petitioners attempted to raise for the first time an objection regarding admitted documents that had not been earlier challenged.
Review petition failed and was dismissed by the Bench.
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 ANTONY DOMINIC
&
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MAY 2016/4TH JYAISHTA, 1938
RP.No. 76 of 2016 (F) IN RFA.54/2008
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN RFA 54/2008 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 16-10-2015
REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANTS:
BY ADVS.SRI.T.KRISHNANUNNI (SR.) SRI.VINOD RAVINDRANATH SRI.SAJU.S.A SMT.MEENA.A. SRI.K.C.KIRAN SRI.M.DEVESH SRI.VINAY MATHEW JOSEPH
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
W/O. MUHAMMEDKUNHI HAJI, HOUSE WIFE, ALIMA MANZIL,, NEAR MASJID, KANNOTHUMCHAL, KANNUR-6,, PRESENTLY R/AT BLK 237,CHOA CHUKANG CENTRAL 09-57,, SINGAPORE-680 237,REP.BY P.A.HOLDER,C.K.JAYAKUMAR,S/O. KRISHNAN, KRISHNA NIVAS, TALAP, KANNUR-2
D/O. MUHAMMEDKUNHI HAJI, ALIMA MANZIL,, NEAR MASJID, KANNOTHUMCHAL, KANNUR-6,, PRESENTLY R/AT BLK 237,CHOA CHUKANG CENTRAL 09-57,, SINGAPORE-680 237,REP.BY P.A.HOLDER,C.K.JAYAKUMAR,P.A.HOLDER,C.K.JAYAKUMAR, S/O. KRISHNAN, KRISHNA NIVAS, TALAP, KANNUR-2
RP.76/16
S/O. MUHAMMEDKUNHI HAJI, ALIMA MANZIL,, NEAR MASJID, KANNOTHUMCHAL, KANNUR-6,, PRESENTLY R/AT BLK 237, CHOA CHUKANG CENTRAL 09-57,, SINGAPORE-680 237,REP.BY P.A.HOLDER,C.K.JAYAKUMAR,S/O. KRISHNAN, KRISHNA NIVAS, TALAP, KANNUR-2
W/O. MUHAMMEDKUNHI HAJI, ALIMA MANZIL,, NEAR MASJID, KANNOTHUMCHAL, KANNUR-6,, PRESENTLY R/AT BLK 237, CHOA CHUKANG CENTRAL 09-57,, SINGAPORE-680 237,REP.BY P.A.HOLDER,C.K.JAYAKUMAR,S/O. KRISHNAN, KRISHNA NIVAS, TALAP, KANNUR-2
R BY SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ANTONY DOMINIC & P.V.ASHA, JJ.
R.P.No.76 of 2016 in R.F.A.No.54 of 2008 ----------------------------------Dated this the 25th day of May, 2016
O R D E R
Antony Dominic, J.
RP.76/16
2
appeal memorandum or during the course of the hearing of the appeal. In such circumstances, we cannot now say that for non-consideration of a contention which was never raised by the petitioners, the judgment is vitiated by any error justifying its review.
Review petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
kkb.
/True copy/
PS to Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a review petition can be allowed for raising a new contention that was never raised before the trial court or during the appeal hearing.
Karachan Veetil Mariyam
Karachan Veetil Sahul Hameed
Karachan Veetil Hussain
Alima Beevi
Fathima Bibi
Ahisa Bevi
Antony Dominic
P.V.Asha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
