Vidhyadharan v. Jayan
Case brief
What is this about?
In regular second appeals and a writ petition, Justice Sathish Ninan held that a finding in the impugned judgment regarding the existence of a demolished building was an error apparent on record. Consequently, he allowed the review petitions and recalled the judgments.
What did the court decide?
Review petitions allowed; common judgment dated 02.11.2022 in the regular second appeals and writ petition recalled.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 29TH JYAISHTA, 1945
RP NO. 10 OF 2023
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RSA 1119/2013 AND W.P(C) NO.12733/2016 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
VIDHYADHARAN,AGED 56 YEARS S/O ALUKKAL ANKAPPAN, ALUKKAL HOUSE,KODAKARA VILLEGE AND DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK., PIN - 680308 BY ADV T.N.MANOJ
RESPONDENT/APPELLANT:
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)
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:
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the judgment in the regular second appeal and writ petition reveals an error apparent on record regarding the existence of a demolished building and requires recall.
Whether the review petitions filed against the judgment dated 02.11.2022 are maintainable.
Whether the writ petition requires recall in light of the error in the regular second appeal regarding property identification.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Vidhyadaran
- respondent
Jayan
Coram
Sathish Ninan
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court