← Library
High Court of KeralaRP/1186/2015dismissed

Sarojini Amma v. Vijayan Pillai

2015-12-18Honourable Mr. Justice Shaji P.Chaly4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937 RP.No. 1186 of 2015 (K) IN WP(C).16308/2013 --------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 16308/2013 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 13-11-2015 REVIEW PETITIONER/5TH RESPONDENT:

---------------------------------------------------------- SAROJINI AMMA, AGED 68 YEARS W/O.LATE NARAYANAN, MANARVILAYIL HOUSE ERUMAKUZHI MURI, PALAMEL VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.G.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 & 6 TO 11: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. VIJAYAN PILLAI, AGED 45 YEARS S/O.LATE RAGHAVAN PILLAI THADATHIL VADAKKEKKARA VEEDU, ERUMAKUZHI MURI PANAYIL.P.O., NOORANAD, PALAMEL PIN-690 504.

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688 001.

3. THE TAHSILDAR MAVELIKKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 690 001.

4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER PALMEL VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.690 001.

5. SOMAN NAIR PUTHENVEETTIL KAZHAKKETHIL, ERUMAKUZHI MURI PANAYIL.P.O., NOORANAD, PALAMEL PIN-690 504.

6. VIJAYAMMA THADATHIL VEEDU, ERUMAKUZHI MURI, PANAYIL.P.O. NOORANAD, PALAMEL, PIN-690 504.

RP.No. 1186 of 2015

7. SARASWATHYAMMA THADATHIL VEEDU, ERUMAKUZHI MURI, PANAYIL.P.O. NOORANAD, PALAMEL, PIN-690 504.

8. GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI THADATHIL VEEDU, ERUMAKUZHI MURI, PANAYIL.P.O. NOORANAD, PALAMEL, PIN-690 504.

9. AMBILY KRISHNAVILASAM, ERUMAKUZHI MURI, PANAYIL.P.O. NOORANAD, PALAMEL, PIN-690 504.

10. KRISHNAN NAIR KRISHNAVILASAM, ERUMAKUZHI MURI, PANAYIL.P.O. NOORANAD, PALAMEL, PIN-690 504.

11. THE SECRETARY PALAMEL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, NOORANAD.P.O.

ALAPPUZHA-690 504.

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.C. VINCENT BY SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN BY SRI.UNNIKRISHNAN.V.ALAPATT THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-122015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: smv

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

----------------------------------------------- Review Petition No.1186 of 2015 in W.P.(C) No.16308 of 2013 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of December, 2015

O R D E R

The Writ Petition was disposed of by judgment dated 13.11.2015 by which the 1st respondent therein was directed to take action pursuant to Ext.P4, taking into account Ext.P3 series of orders in accordance with law and within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

2. Now a review petition is filed by the 5th respondent seeking to review the judgment on the ground that the 5th respondent has already filed an objection before the 2nd respondent and unless and until a direction is issued by this Court, the objection filed by him will be overlooked by the 2nd respondent.

3. In fact, in the judgment it is categorically stated that the 2nd respondent shall dispose of Ext.P4 in accordance with law and therefore, obviously the 2nd

Review Petition No.1186 of 2015 respondent is expected to issue a notice to the party respondents. Any how the period granted by this Court to consider Ext.P4 is over. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent, on the other hand submits that the attempt of the review petitioner is to protract the proceedings and therefore, there shall be a peremptory direction to the 2nd respondent to complete the proceedings at the earliest point of time since the matter is pending before the 2nd respondent for long. I do not think that there is any substance in the review petition, since the review petitioner has failed to point out any error apparent on the face of the record. But at the same time I make it clear that the 2nd respondent will provide an opportunity of being heard to the review petitioner on the basis of the objection filed by the review petitioner. Any how the whole exercise shall be completed within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after hearing all concerned. Review petition is dismissed with the above observations.

Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE //true copy// smv P.A. To Judge 18.12.2015