High Court judge dismissed a review petition challenging observations in an earlier judgment, holding that the trial court must dispose of a remand order untrammeled by such observations.
Review petition 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. 871 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.09.2021 IN RFA 360/2009 OF HIGH COURT
OF KERALA
O.S.No.340/2003 OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, PALAKKAD
REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT:
B.P.SHERFUDHEEN, S/o USMAN, RESIDING AT SUNMALLA MANZILL, PALLIPPURAM, YAKKARA AMSOM, PALAKKAD, BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER P. ASHRAF, S/o UMMER, WEST FORT MAIDAN, PALAKKAD
BY ADV P.R.VENKATESH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5 AND 7 TO 13 IN RFA:
RP No.871 of 2021
2
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RP No.871 of 2021
3
ORDER
The review petitioner came up aggrieved by the
observation made in paragraph 2 of the judgment. But, it is an order of remand to the trial court. Necessarily, the trial court has to dispose of the matter untrammeled by any of the observations made in the impugned judgment. With that observation, the review petition is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN
JUDGE
DMR/-
B.P.SHERFUDHEEN
VENUGOPALAN
P.SOMARAJAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
