Allowed

The Secretary Akathethara Grama Panchayath, v. Shri Siromani D

Kerala HC10 Mar 2023RP/92/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This review petition, filed by the 3rd respondent in the original writ petition, sought review of the judgment dated 22.12.2022. The court recalled the earlier order due to a wrong and mistaken submission made by the respondent's counsel regarding a no-objection stance in a different matter on the same day.

What did the court decide?

The judgment dated 22.12.2022 in W.P.(C)No.26360 of 2020 is recalled, and the writ petition is posted after the roster.

The Secretary Akathethara Grama Panchayath, Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1944

¶5

RP NO. 92 OF 2023

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 26360/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/3RD RESPONDENT:

¶7

THE SECRETARY
AKATHETHARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
AKATHETHARA P.O, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678 008.

¶8

BY ADV U.BALAGANGADHARAN

¶9

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS 1&2:

¶10

1SHRI SIROMANI D,
S/O DEVADAS, AGED 83 YEARS,
RESIDING AT EDEN HOUSE, ONAVAKKOD,
DHONI P.O, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678 009.

¶11

2STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 001.

¶12

3 THE DIRECTOR, PANCHAYATH DIRECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 001.

¶13

BY ADV MATHEW JOHN
SR. GP SRI.K.P. HARISH

¶14

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

R.P. 92/23 in WP(C) 26360/20

¶16

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Dated this the 10^th day of March, 2023

¶19

This review petition is filed by the 3^rd respondent in the writ petition seeking to review the judgment dated 22.12.2022 in W.P.(C)No.26360 of 2020. The said writ petition was filed for a direction to the respondents therein to grant building number to the building constructed in land in ReSy.No.116/13 in the ownership of the writ petitioner as per B.L.No.123/12-13 issued by the 3^rd respondent.

¶20

When the writ petition came up for admission on 22.12.2022, the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent submitted that the 3^rd respondent has no objection in granting building number to the building constructed by the petitioner and building number will be assigned within a period of one month.

¶21

In the review petition, it is contended by the review petitioner/3^rd respondent that the said submission was an inadvertent mistake. Paragraph 2 of the review petition reads as follows:

¶22

R.P. 92/23 in WP(C) 26360/20

¶23

¶24

“2) It is submitted that the above writ petition was listed for hearing on 22.12.2022 as item 138. In the same list, WPC 35958/2022 is also listed as item 141. The petitioner herein also appears for Akathethara Panchayat in WPC 35958/2022 (item 141). The said WPC 35958/22 came up for consideration of IA 1/2022 for modification of the order. The petitioner/Panchayat has no objection in allowing the said IA. Accordingly it was intended to convey "no objection" in allowing the said IA. It is, however, unfortunate that due to some inadvertency on the part of the counsel for the petitioner, a wrong and mistaken submission was made to the effect that the 3rd respondent/Panchayat in 26360/2020 has "no objection" in W.P.[ c ] 26360/20 (item 138). It is submitted that the petitioner wanted to submit "no objection" with regard to IA 1/2022 in WPC 35958/2022 (item 141) only. The mistake committed by the petitioner was not wilful and it was due to confusion arose in identifying the item. Unless the case is reviewed and restored on the files of this Hon'ble Court, the petitioner will put to irreparable injuries and loss.”

¶25

I have gone through the order dated 22.12.2022 in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in W.P.(C)No.35958 of 2022, posted as item No.141 on the same day referred above. I am satisfied that it was a wrong and mistaken submission made by the counsel for the 3^rd respondent. Since the judgment was rendered on

¶26

R.P. 92/23 in WP(C) 26360/20

¶27

¶28

the said mistaken submission, I find that there is sufficient reason to review the judgment dated 22.12.2022 in W.P. (C)No.26360 of 2020.

¶29

Accordingly, the review petition is allowed and the judgment dated 22.12.2022 in W.P.(C)No.26360 of 2020 is recalled.

¶30

In view of the urgency pointed out by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, post the writ petition as per roster next week.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

Murali Purushothaman Judge

¶33

vpv

¶34

//true copy//

¶35

P.A. to Judge

The Secretary Akathethara Grama Panchayath, v. Shri Siromani D

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Secretary Akathethara Grama Panchayath, v. Shri Siromani D

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saraswathi P. Vs Bijoy Kishore

K.Premraj Vs the Managing Director

Apple Tower Owners Welfare Assocation, Vs Gopakumar

Capt,George Varughese Vs State of Kerala

G.Krishnakumar Vs R.Manoharan

M.P.Suresh Babu Vs Indian Bank