Kerala High Court
R. Murugan vs L.Wilson
Author: K. Ramakrishnan
Bench: K.Ramakrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/25TH PHALGUNA, 1938
RP.No. 234 of 2017 () IN OP(C).2676/2016
------------------------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP(C) 2676/2016 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS/1ST RESPONDENT:
---------------------------------
R. MURUGAN
CHAIRMAN,
MARYMATHA EDUCATION SOCIETY,
PALIYODU, NEYYATTINKARA, RESIDING AT RAJKOT,
THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.R.S.KALKURA
SRI.M.S.KALESH
SRI.HARISH GOPINATH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
--------------------------
1. L.WILSON
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
S/O.LAZER NADAR, AVIKUZHI VEEDU,
OLATHANNI, KADAVATTARAM DESOM,
NEYYETTINKARA,
2. G RAJA RETNAM,
RESIDING AT GRACE BUILDINGS,
DOOR NO 25, IIND FLOOR, M C NICHOLAS ROAD, CHIPPET,
CHENNAI-31
BY SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RP.No. 234 of 2017 () IN OP(C).2676/2016
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE A1- TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN OS.285/11 ON THE
FILE OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGES COURT, NEYYATTINKARA FILED BY D2.
ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP(C) 2833/12 DATED 12.10.12
OF THIS COURT.
ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5.1.13 IN SPECIAL LEAVE
PETITION NO.33473/12
ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.10.14 IN TRP NO.61/14 ON
THE FILE OF THIS COURT.
ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMBINED ORDER DATED 12.4.13 IN
IA.1562/12 AND IA.185/13 IN OS.264/02 OF SUB COURT, NEYYA
ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE OPC 2156/13 FILED BY R1 BEFORE THIS
COURT CLAIMING TO BE THE CHAIRMAN OF THE MARY MATHA EDUCATION
SOCIETY.
/TRUE COPY/
P.S TO JUDGES
CL
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
.......................................
R.P.No.234 of 2017
in
O.P.(C).No.2676 of 2016
........................................
Dated this the 16th day of March, 2017.
O R D E R
The above review petition has been filed by the petitioner dissatisfied with the manner in which the original petition was disposed of stating that in view of the dismissal of the suit the impugned order has become inconsequential as according to the counsel for the review petitioner, this word will cause unnecessary hardship to the petitioner and he will have to prove in each and every proceedings that he is the person entitled to represent the Society.
2. Heard Sri. R.S. Kalkura, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Ramesh Chander, senior counsel appearing for the 1st respondent.
What is intended by this Court while observing "in view of the dismissal of the suit the order impugned has become inconsequential" is that there is no necessity to go into the legality of the order passed and nothing more.
With the above clarification, the review petition is disposed of. SD/-
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.
/true copy/ PS to Judge cl