High Court of Kerala disposed of a review petition filed to correct a factual observation in an earlier judgment regarding non-appearance of the second respondent despite service of notice and filing of Vakalath.
Ordered that the 3rd paragraph of the prior judgment be reviewed to correct the record regarding the respondent's appearance.
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
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1940
RP.No. 570 of 2018 IN WPC. 20766/2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 20766/2018 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED
REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS NO. 1 & 2:-
1 SREEKRISHNAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, SREEKRISHNAPURAM P.O., PIN - 679 513, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2 THE SECRETARY, SREEKRISHNAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, SREEKRISHNAPURAM P.O.,PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679 513. BY ADVS.SMT.C.SEENA SMT.P.B.WAHIDA
RESPONDENT(S)/WRIT PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO.3 AND 4:-:
1. GOPAKUMAR, S/O.GOVINDANKUTTY KURUP, KALLATHIL HOUSE, PARIYANAMPATT, KATTUKULAM P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679 514. 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KANJIRAPPUZHA IRRIGATION PROJECT, KANJIRAPPUZHA, PIN - 678 591. 3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KANJIRAPPUZHA IRRIGATION PROJECT, KANJIRAPPUZHA, PIN - 678 591.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.P.PRABHAKARAN (PALAKKAD) BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.M.MANOJ
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
dlk/13/7/18
SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
R.P.No.570 of 2018
in
WP(C) No.20766 of 2018
Dated this the 13th day of July, 2018
ORDER
This review petition is filed by the second respondent seeking to
review the judgment dated 29.6.2018 basically for the reason that it was
recorded in the judgment that even though notice is served on the second respondent, there is no appearance. Learned counsel for the petitioner in the review petition submitted that, even though the Vakalath
was filed before this Court, the same was remaining defective and the petitioner's name was not shown in the cause title. Therefore, taking into
account the submissions made by learned counsel across the Bar, I am of
the considered opinion that, the 3rd paragraph in the judgment is to be
reviewed, accordingly. Accordingly, I do so. I also make it clear that, the
directions issued by this Court is in no way affecting the second
R.P.No.570 of 2018 in
2
WP(C) No.20766 of 2018
respondent since a direction was issued to take appropriate action in
Exts.P1, P4 and P6 at the earliest possible time. Therefore, the registry will issue appropriate orders in accordance with the directions contained
above.
Review petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE
dlk/13/7/18
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a review should be granted to correct a factual recording regarding the applicant's absence.
SREEKRISHNAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH
GOPAKUMAR
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
SHAJI P. CHALY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
