Dismissed
Vinodan E.T.K. v. K.K.Rubeena
Kerala HCRCRev./329/2016
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE…
What the court decided
AI extract
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 P.B.SURESH KUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 31ST BHADRA,
1944
RCREV. NO. 329 OF 2016
AGAINST THE ORDER IN RCP NO.4 OF 2014 OF MUNSIFF COURT, VADAKARA CONCURRING WITH THE COMMON ORDER IN RCA NO.92 OF 2014 DATED 31.03.2014 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - IV, KOZHIKODE / III ADDITIONAL MACT,
KOZHIKODE
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
VINODAN E.T.K.
AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.NANU, IMMANATH THAZHEKUNIYIL HOUSE, MEMUNDA AMSOM, KUTTOTH DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
K.K.RUBEENA AGED 35 YEARS D/O.ABDULLA, DARUL HUDA HOUSE, CHORODE AMSOM, ERAPURAM DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 101.
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.09.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
R.C.R. No.329 of 2016
..2..
R.C.R. No.329 of 2016
O R D E R
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the revision petition has become infructuous.
In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel, the revision petition is dismissed as infructuous.
Sd/P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, JUDGE.
ds 22.09.2022
K.K.RUBEENA
P.B.SURESH KUMAR
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court