Pattikkadan Mohammed v. Moidutty Haji
Case brief
What is this about?
Review petition regarding a stay order in a writ petition was closed as the notice period under Section 80 CPC had already expired and no relief survived.
What did the court decide?
The review petition was closed with no further action.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
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 SHAJI P.CHALY
TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 11TH PHALGUNA, 1942
RP.No.371 OF 2018(J) IN WP(C). 11896/2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 11896/2018 DATED 05-04-2018 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 3:
1 PATTIKKADAN MOHAMMED S/O.BEERAN,AGED 60 YEARS,PATTIKKADAN HOUSE,KURUMBATHOOR AMSOM,PUNNATHALA DESOM,NELLITHADAM,RANDATHANI.P.O, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
2 SIDHIQUE S/O.MOHAMMED,AGED 43 YRS,THARAMMAL PUTHENPEEDIYEKKAL(H),KURUMBATHOOR AMSOM,PUNNATHALA DESOM,NELLITHADAM,RANDATHANAI.P.O,TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 2 & 4 TO 6:
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
PATTIKKADAN MOHAMMED
- respondent
SIDHIQUE
- respondent
MOIDUTTY HAJI
- respondent
ASHARAF
- respondent
BEERANKUTTY
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court