George Kurian Arikody v. Geordy Joseph Pittappilly

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/26TH POUSHA, 1936 RP.No. 1018 of 2014 () IN Tr.P(C).395/2014 -------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN Tr.P(C) 395/2014 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 19.09.2014 REVIEW PETITIONER(S):/PETITIONER ---------------------------------------- GEORGE KURIAN ARIKODY FLAT NO.A(iii)-MMC 12/183 H, KAVUMPADY ROAD MARADY VILLAGE IN FRONT OF NIRMALA JUNIOR SCHOOL, MUVATTUPUZHA POST ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 686 661 BY ADV. GEORGE KURIAN ARIKODY (PARTY IN PERSON) RESPONDENT(S):/RESPONDENT ---------------------------- GEORDY JOSEPH PITTAPPILLY PITTAPPILLY HOUSE IN FRONT OF NIRMALA JUNIOR SCHOOL, KAVUMPADY ROAD, MARADY VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA POST, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 686 661. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

RP1018/14 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ANNEXURE A1 :

COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN TRPC 395/14 IN RCP 04/2011.

ANNEXURE A2 :

COPY OF THE IA NO.2023/2014 IN TRPC 395/2014 ON THE DE JURE RIGHT OF THE REVIEW PETITIONER / TENANT. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE.

jg

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.

.................................................................... R.P.No.1018 of 2014 in Tr.P(C) No.395 of 2014 .................................................................... Dated this the 16th day of January, 2015.

O R D E R

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.

1.We have heard the party-in-person. He seeks review of the judgment dated 19.09.2014 in Tr.P(C) No.395 of 2014. 2.Petitioner insisted that he had not got an equal treatment in terms of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and that there are statements in the judgment which are false. He has gone to the extent of saying that certain sentences therein were not actually dictated in court, though the judgment was pronounced in open court. We see that the Tr.P(C) was decided on 19.09.2014 after hearing the party-in-person, and therefore, in his presence. The directions issued after holding that there was no ground to transfer RCP No.4 of 2011 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Perumbavoor were even to ensure that the petitioner, who is now before us, would get a proper trial, in terms of the directions

RP 1018/14 -2contained in the order of remit made in the appellate judgment in RCA No.16 of 2008.

3.Having perused the judgment sought to be reviewed and having heard the party-in-person, we do not see any ground for review of the judgment having been made out. This application for review, hence, fails.

In the result, this review petition is dismissed. (THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) (BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) jg