High Court of Kerala dismissed a review petition arguing that the impugned judgment did not preclude the Additional District Magistrate from afresh adjudicating a pending matter. The court held the review not maintainable.
The review petition was dismissed.
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.SOMARAJAN
TUESDAY, THE 11th DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 21ST POUSHA, 1943
RP NO. 34 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.08.2019 IN RSA 1027/2010 OF HIGH COURT
OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/4th RESPONDENT:
PADMINI GOPALAKRISHNAN, AGED 60 YEARS, W/o GOPALAKRISHNAN, SHANKARASSERIL VELIYIL, SANATHANAPURAM WARD, PAZHAVEEDU VILLAGE, AMBALAPPUZHA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA - 688 561
BY ADVS. B.PRAMOD NAMITHA JYOTHISH
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:
1 SREEKUMAR, S/o SATHYABHAMA, RESIDING AT JAGARIYA PARAMBU, (KANNIMEL PURAYIDAM), KAITHAVANA MURI, PAZHAVEEDU VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA – 688 009
2 KUNJUNNI CHAKRAPANI, S/o KUNJUNNI, RESIDING AT JAGARIYA PARAMBU, (KANNIMEL PURAYIDAM), KAITHAVANA MURI, PAZHAVEEDU VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA – 688 009
3 LAKSHMI SATHYABHAMA, D/o LAKSHMY, RESIDING AT JAGARIYA PARAMBU, (KANNIMEL PURAYIDAM), KAITHAVANA MURI, PAZHAVEEDU VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA – 688 009
4 LAKSHMI SOUDAMINI, RESIDING AT JAGARIYA PARAMBU, (KANNIMEL PURAYIDAM), KAITHAVANA MURI, PAZHAVEEDU VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA – 688 009
6 THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDYUDHIBHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 004, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
RP No.34 of 2022
2
7 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR NORTH SECTION, KSE BOARD, ALAPPUZA – 688 009 8 RAJENDRAN, S/o AYYAPPAN, RESIDING AT HOUSE No.30/444, KANNIMEL PURAYIDOM, KAITHAVANA MURI, PAZHAVEEDU VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA – 688 001
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RP No.34 of 2022
3
ORDER
When the matter came up for hearing, it is fairly submitted by the review petitioner that there is no sufficient ground for maintaining this petition, but pressed for an order to the effect that the impugned judgment will not stand in the way of adjudication of the issue afresh by the Additional District Magistrate before whom the matter is now pending consideration. It is made clear that the judgment rendered by this court will not take away the authority of the Additional Magistrate to decide the issue in accordance with the law in force. With that observation, the review petition is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN
JUDGE
DMR/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the review petition is maintainable as no sufficient ground existed for its filing?
Whether the concluding judgment bars the Additional District Magistrate from adjudicating the issue afresh?
PADMINI GOPALAKRISHNAN
SREEKUMAR
KUNJUNNI CHAKRAPANI
LAKSHMI SATHYABHAMA
LAKSHMI SOUDAMINI
RAMACHANDRAN
P. SOMARAJAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
