Allowed

Vidhyadharan v. Jayan

Kerala HC19 Jun 2023RP/10/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge allowed two review petitions challenging orders remanding suit and counterclaim for fresh disposal. The court held that an admitted error regarding the existence of a demolished building constituted an error apparent on record, necessitating the recall of both the regular second appeal and writ petition judgments.

What did the court decide?

Both Review Petitions R.P No.10 of 2023 and No.20 of 2023 allowed; common judgment of RSA and W.P recalled.

Vidhyadharan Vs Jayan — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 19^TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 29TH JYAISHTA, 1945

¶5

RP NO. 10 OF 2023

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RSA 1119/2013 AND W.P(C) NO.12733/2016 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

¶8

VIDHYADHARAN,AGED 56 YEARS S/O ALUKKAL ANKAPPAN, ALUKKAL HOUSE,KODAKARA VILLEGE AND DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK., PIN - 680308 BY ADV T.N.MANOJ

¶9

RESPONDENT/APPELLANT:

¶10

JAYAN,AGED 56 YEARS,S/O THANKAMMA @ UNNIAMMAL, KARAPPILLY HOUSE, KOODAPPUZHA DESOM, KIZHEKKE CHALAKKUDY VILLEGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK., PIN - 680307 BY ADVS. G.UNNIKRISHNAN P.VISWANATHAN (SR.)(K/000283/1986)

¶11

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.06.2023, ALONG WITH RP.20/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶13

PRESENT

¶14

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

¶15

MONDAY, THE 19^TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 29TH JYAISHTA, 1945

¶16

RP NO. 20 OF 2023

¶17

AGAINST THE JUDGMENTRSA 1154/2013 AND W.P(C) NO.12733/2016 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶18

REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

¶19

VIDHYADHARAN,AGED 56 YEARS S/O ALUKKAL ANKAPPAN, ALUKKAL HOUSE,KODAKARA VILLEGE AND DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK., PIN - 680308

¶20

BY ADV T.N.MANOJ

¶21

RESPONDENT/APPELLANT:

¶22

JAYAN,AGED 56 YEARS,S/O THANKAMMA @ UNNIAMMAL, KARAPPILLY HOUSE, KOODAPPUZHA DESOM, KIZHEKKE CHALAKKUDY VILLEGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK., PIN - 680307

¶23

BY ADVS. G.UNNIKRISHNAN P.VISWANATHAN (SR.)(K/000283/1986)

¶24

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶25

19.06.2023, ALONG WITH RP.10/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY

¶26

DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

Sathish Ninan, J.

¶28

==============================

¶29

R.P No.10 of 2023 in R.S.A No.1119 of 2013 & R.P No.20 of 2023 in R.S.A No.1154 of 2013 & W.P(C) No.12733 of 2016 ========================== Dated this the 19^th day of June, 2023

¶30

ORDER

¶31

As per the judgment sought to be reviewed, the suit

¶32

and the counter claim were remanded to the trial court

¶33

for fresh disposal including, identification of the property.

¶34

At paragraph 8 of the judgment, this Court observed thus:

¶35

“It is not in dispute that the four

¶36

roomed building that existed in the property

¶37

was demolished by the parties and was not in

¶38

existence when the Commissioner visited the

¶39

property.”

¶40

Both sides admit that the above statement is an

¶41

error apparent on record. Therefore, I feel that, in the

¶42

light of the said error, the judgment sought to be reviewed is liable to be recalled.

¶43

R.P No.10 of 2023 in R.S.A No.1119 of 2013 & R.P No.20 of 2023 in R.S.A No.1154 of 2013 & W.P(C) No.12733 of 2016

¶44

Since the Writ Petition was also heard along

¶45

with the appeals and the issue of identification of the

¶46

property in question is of significance therein also,

¶47

the judgment in the Writ Petition is also liable to be recalled.

¶48

Accordingly, the Review Petitions are allowed.

¶49

The common judgment dated 02.11.2022 in the Regular Second Appeals and the Writ Petition is reviewed and recalled.

¶50

Post the matters as per roster.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

Sathish Ninan, Judge

¶53

vdv

Vidhyadharan v. Jayan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vidhyadharan v. Jayan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Super Transport Company Vs Tata Tea Limited

Arun R. Vs Mr. R. Ashok

N.P.Vijayalakshmy Vs M/S.Percot Mills Ltd.

Dr.Baby Kurian Vs University of Kerala

Vidhyadharan Vs Jayan

Shaji Joseph Vs M.J.Sebastian