Meethala Kannambath Kadeesa v. V.K.Achuthakurup
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/5TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937 RP.No. 503 of 2007 ( ) IN AS.399/1992 ------------------------------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN AS 399/1992 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 14-11-2006 OS.No.15/1987 OF SUB COURT, VADAKARA REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/3RD RESPONDENT:
---------------------------------------------------------------- MEETHALA KANNAMBATH THAMASIKKUM KANNAMBATH KADEESA, PALAYAD AMSOM PATHIYARAKARA DESOM, VADAKARA.
BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANTS & RESPONDENTS 1,2,4, TO 6: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. V.K.ACHUTHAKURUP, 'VIDHIA BHAVAN, KARUVANCHERI AMSOM DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK.
2. O.BALAKRISHNAN,PALAYAD AMSOM, PATHIYARAKARA DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK.
3. K.AYISSA,PALAYAD AMSOM,PATHIYARAKARA DESOM, VADAKARA
4. AMINA,PALAYAD AMSOM, PATHIYARAKARA DESOM, VADAKARA.
5. KIZHAKKETHURUTHI PARAMBATH ALIAS, KALLULLAPARAMBIL KUNHABDULLA, PATHIYARAKARA DESOM VADAKARA.
6. PALLIPARMBATH KUNHIRAMAN, PATHIYARAKARA DESOM, VADAKARA.
7. ARAYULLA KANDI AMMAD, KARUVANCHERI DESOM, VADAKARA.
R BY ADVS. SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN R BY SRI.B.KRISHNAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-11-2015, ALONG WITH RP. 809/2007, RP. 815/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
DG
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- C.M.Appl.No.808 of 2007 & R.P.No.503 of 2007 in AS No.399 of 1992, C.M.Appl.No.1495 of 2007 & R.P.No.809 of 2007 in AS No.335 of 1992 and C.M.Appl.No.1501 of 2007 & R.P.No.815 of 2007 in AS No.399 of 1992 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of November, 2015
ORDER
1.These applications seeking review of judgment stand with applications seeking condonation of delay in institution. 2.Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioners and the learned counsel for defendants 5 and 6.
3.The judgment sought to be reviewed was rendered reversing the preliminary decree passed by the trial court. The particular finding on which the suit was dismissed by this Court was that the plaintiff had not identified the property that is sought to be partitioned. Going through the judgment sought to be reviewed, it is beyond doubt that this Court had adverted to
R.P.Nos.503, 809 & 815/07 and considered the Commissioner's report and plan and had concluded that the description of the property is at variance with what has been identified and the resultant situation emanating out of the discussions touching the facts was that the plaintiff had not established the identity of the property sought to be partitioned. There is no ground for review of judgment, since there is no error apparent on the face of the record and no other ground for review has been established. 4.For the aforesaid reasons, the applications seeking condonation of delay and the review petitions do not merit consideration and issuance of notice. Review petitions fail. In the result, the C.M.Applications and the review petitions are dismissed.
Sd- (THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE DG