M.Sasidharan Nair @ Kannan v. Rajesh T.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/12TH KARTHIKA, 1937 RP.No. 999 of 2015 ---------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.13920/2015, DATED 30-06-2015 ----------------- REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/THIRD RESPONDENT IN THE WRIT PETITION : --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- M.SASIDHARAN NAIR @ KANNAN, AGED 52 YEARS, NEPHEW OF MADHAVAN NAIR, TC. 20/2750, VIJAYA NIVAS, KARAMANA (P.O), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 002.

BY ADV. SRI.G.P.SHINOD RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 IN THE WRIT PETITION :

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. RAJESH T., S/O.THANKAPPAN, THOPPUMUDUMBIL HOUSE, TC 31/1288, CHAKAI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 009.

2. THE CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

3. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, CORPORATION OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. R1 BY ADV. SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR, S.C THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Msd.

RP.No. 999 of 2015 ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :

ANNEXURE I:

CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.06.2015 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.13920 OF 2015.

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :

NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

-------------------------------------------------- R.P. No. 999 of 2015 in W.P. (C) No. 13920 of 2015 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2015

O R D E R

The grievance projected by the petitioner in the review petition is that as civil suits between the parties are pending, the observations made in the judgment may affect the final verdict in the suits as well as the previous decrees.

Therefore, the review petition is disposed of, making it clear that this Court has not touched anything on merits and the right of the parties shall be governed by the decrees already passed and yet to be passed in the pending civil proceedings.

Sd/- A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE bka/03.11.15