Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

M/S.Cmj Granites vs Anish George on 8 November, 2010

Author: Antony Dominic

Bench: Antony Dominic

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RP.No. 970 of 2010(L)


1. M/S.CMJ GRANITES, BUILDING NO.8215,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. ANISH GEORGE, S/O.GEORGE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. P.R.BABU, S/O.RAMAN, AGED 48 YEARS,

3. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE

4. THE JOINT CHIEF CONTROLLER OF

5. THE DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF

6. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JOBI JOSE KONDODY

                For Respondent  :SRI.K.K.RAZIYA  ACGSC

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :08/11/2010

 O R D E R
                   ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                     -------------------------
                    R.P. No.970 of 2010
                                in
                 W.P (C) No.29313 of 2010
                     --------------------------
             Dated this the 8th November, 2010

                            O R D E R

Writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 29th September, 2010 directing the second respondent to consider Ext.P5, when orders are passed on the application made by the review petitioner for license.

2. Review petitioner seems to be aggrieved mainly on an allegation in Ext.P5 representation regarding the finding arrived at by the Civil Court in its order in I.A No.853/2010 in O.S No.133/2010, which is Ext.P2 in the writ petition. He submits that in the light of Annexures II and III produced along with the review petition, the said averment in Ext.P5 should not influence the second respondent and that the matter is considered as directed.

3. This Court has only directed the second respondent to consider Ext.P5. When the matter is considered as directed, it is open to the petitioner to make available to second respondent Annexures II and III also, so the second respondent can take note of those R.P. No.970 of 2010 in W.P (C) No.29313 of 2010 2 documents alsoand pass orders in the matter.

Clarifying the position as above, review petition is disposed of.

ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE ma