T.Madhu v. Muraleedharan
This judgment came from a scanned document and its text layer is unreliable — words may be garbled. Check the original PDF before relying on any passage.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/6TH BHADRA, 1936 RP.No. 631 of 2014 () IN FAO.62/2014 -------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN FAO 62/2014 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 12-06-2014 A.S. NO.34/2012 OF ADDL. DISTRICT COURT-II, MAVELIKARA O.S. NO.388/2009 OF MUNSIFF COURT, KAYAMKULAM REVIEW PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT:
--------------------------------------------------------- T.MADHU S/O.THAMPI, VETTATHU VADAKATHIL, KRISHNAPURAM MURI KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE, KRISHNAPURAM P.O.
KAYAMKULAM-680 533.
BY ADVS.SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP SRI.MANU SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS & 2ND RESPONDENT:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. MURALEEDHARAN, AGED 46 YEARS S/O.KRISHNAMOORTHI, KUNNATHALUMOOTTIL, VEMBALIL VEEDU KRISHNAPURAM MURI, KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE REPRESENTED BY P/A.HOLDER VENU, AGED 44 YEARS S/O.KRISHNAMOORTHI, ASHOK BHAVANAM RAMACHANDRAPURA, MUNNESWARA BLOCK, JALAHALLI P.O. BANGALORE FROM VEMBALILVEEDU, KRISHNAPURAM MURI-690533
2. VENU, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAMOORTHI, VEMBALIL VEEDU KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT ASHOK BHAVAN RAMACHANDRA PURA, MUNNESWARA BLOCK, JALAHALLI P.O. BANGALORE .
3. MOHANAN, AGED 44 YEARS S /O.KRISHNAMOORTHI, VEMBALILVEEDU, KRISHNAPURAM MURI KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE-690533
4. GOPALAKRISHNAN S/O.SIVARAMAN NAIR, VALIYAVILA VEEDU, VENKULAM MURI EDAVA VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK-696 311.
R BY SRI.A.SHAFEEK (KAYAMKULAM) THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-08-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B. KEMAL PASHA, J.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` R.P. No.631 of 2014 in F.A.O. No.62 of 2014 ````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 28th day of August, 2014
O R D E R
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. On hearing either side and on perusing the Review Petition, I do not find any apparent error or mistake in the judgment. There is absolutely nothing to interfere with the judgment already passed in the matter. The Review Petition is devoid of merits, and is only to be rejected, and I do so. In the result, the Review Petition is rejected. Sd/- (B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE) aks/28/08 // True Copy // PA to Judge