Ajith M v. K Anilkumar
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court corrected a clerical error where an order was mistakenly recorded as a judgment. The review petitions allowing this correction were allowed, restoring the writ petitions to the record to permit further proceedings.
What did the court decide?
Correction of the heading from 'Judgment' to 'Order' and restoration of Writ Petitions to files. Review Petitions allowed.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1945
RP NO. 351 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.09.2023 IN WP(C) NO.29886 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS/THIRD PARTIES IN WP(C):
1 AJITH M AGED 59 YEARS
S/O LATE P UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR, 'ANJALI', MAATHUR P.O, OMALLUR, PATHANAMTHITTA P.O, PATHANAMTHITTADISTRICT, PIN – 689647.
2 M ABDUL KALAM AZAD, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O LATE P N MEERA SAHIB, PUTHENVEEDU, PETTA, PATHANAMTHITTA P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN – 689645.
3 THOMAS JOSEPH, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O LATE K M JOSEPH, BENCY COTTAGE, KANNANKARA, PATHANAMTHITTA P.O, PATHANAMTHITTADISTRICT, PIN – 689645.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a clerical mistake recording a judgment instead of an order warrants correction and restoration of the petitions.
Whether the writ petitions should be restored to files and the order titled as judgment corrected to order.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Ajith M
- petitioner
M Abdul Kalam Azad
- petitioner
Thomas Joseph
- petitioner
P Mohanrajan
- petitioner
Ramesh M R
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court