Kerala High Court
Moiloth Kadeesa vs Keloth Thamasikkum Koichiparambath ...
Author: K. Ramakrishnan
Bench: K.Ramakrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2016/ 3RD CHAITHRA, 1938
RP.No. 423 of 2015 (O) IN OP(C).1109/2015
-------------------------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP(C) 1109/2015 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 24-
04-2015
PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS:
-------------------------------------------
1. MOILOTH KADEESA, W/O. ABDULLA,
PUTHIYOTTIL HOUSE, KUMMAMKODE AMSOM AND DESOM,
VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT
2. MOILOTH HAMEED, S/O. ABDULLA,
PUTHIYOTTIL HOUSE, KUMMAMKODE AMSOM AND DESOM,
VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT
3. MOILOTH ASHRAF, S/O. ABDULLA, PUTHIYOTTIL HOUSE,
KUMMAMKODE AMSOM AND DESOM,
VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT
BY ADVS. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI (SR.)
SRI.VINOD RAVINDRANATH
SMT.MEENA.A.
SRI.SAJU.S.A
SRI.K.C.KIRAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
-----------------------------------------------
1. KELOTH THAMASIKKUM KOICHIPARAMBATH MOIDU
S/O. KUNHISOOPY HAJI, BUSINESS, IYYAMKODE AMSOM,
KAKKATTIL DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE 673 504
2. KOMBIYULLATHIL THASHA KUNIYIL SUBAI
S/O.KUNJABDULLA HAJI, BUSINESS,
KUMMAMKODE AMSOM AND DESOM,
VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE 673 506
3. MOILOTH MOOSA, S/O. ABDULLA,
KANNOLI HOUSE, KUMMAMKODE AMSOM AND DESOM,
VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE 673 506
(CNTD)
RP.No. 423 of 2015 (O) IN OP(C).1109/2015 2
-------------------------------------------
4. SECRETARY,NADAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
PO KALLACHI, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE 673 506
5. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PHED,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, VEERANCHERY,
PO VATAKARA, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE 673 101
6. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD, PWD OFFICE,
KUTTIADI, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE 673 508
7. TAHASILDAR, VATAKARA TALUK,
PO VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE 673101
8. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, REPRESENTATIVE TO GOVT.,
CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, 673 020
9. C.M. KUNHAMMAD HAJI, S/O. KUNHABDULLA HAJI,
BUSINESS, KELOTH KOILOTH HOUSE, VELLORE AMSOM,
CHALAPPURAM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 002
R9 BY ADV. SRI.MOHANAN V.T.K.
R4 BY ADV. SRI.U.P.BALAKRISHNAN
R2 BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNAN
R2 BY ADV. SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY
R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.DEVESH
R5-R8 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.MADHU BEN
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-03-2016, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
JV
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------
R.P.No.423 of 2015
in
O.P.(Civil) No.1109 of 2015
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2016
ORDER
This is an application filed by the petitioners to review the judgment dated 24.04.2015 under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. It is alleged in the petition that this Court has not gone into the question as to whether Ext.P7 order which is under challenge is legal or not and the petitioners have no other remedy except to approach this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as the impugned order neither revisable nor appealable. So that caused prejudice to the petitioners.
3. For respondents 5 to 8, the learned Government Pleader entered appearance. Respondents 2, 3, 4 and 9 entered appearance through counsel. Notice to other R.P.No.423/2015 2 respondents are served but not appeared.
4. Heard Sri Krishnan Unni, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the review petitioners, Sri R.Parthasarathy representing Sri B. Krishnan, counsel for the 2nd respondent, Sri.M.Devesh, counsel for the 3rd respondent and the Government Pleader Smt. Madhu Ben representing respondents 5 to 8.
5. The Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that Ext.P7 order impleading the 9th respondent herein was challenged by filing this writ petition and also their main grievance was that without hearing the question of maintainability, the petition ought not have been allowed. On the other hand, the counsel for the 9th respondent submitted that he is having interest in the property in which the building is going to be constructed and he got an information that the present petitioners are influencing the plaintiffs to withdraw the suit and since it is a matter of public interest against violation of building rules, he is also having interest in the subject matter. So his impleadment is R.P.No.423/2015 3 proper. The counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that he has no interest in the litigation at present. Heard other counsel and the Government Pleader as well.
6. At the time when the original petition came up for admission during vacation, since the importance of the main relief claimed in the petition has not been properly projected and the grievance was that on account of the order passed, the interim order prayed could not be obtained from the Court in which, the case was pending and some directions will have to be given to authorities for granting permit, this Court disposed of the petition without going into the merits regarding the legality of Ext.P7 order relegating the parties to move the vacation court in the respective district for getting interim relief, if any, required in a pending matter as prayed for in the petition. But now, it is understood that the main grievance of the petitioners is that they want to challenge Ext.P7 order which has not been gone into by this Court while disposing the original petition.
R.P.No.423/2015 4
So this Court feels it is appropriate to review the findings passed by this Court by admitting the review petition on file and dispose of the Original Petition itself merit as all have been served and all the parties are represented by counsel. So the application is allowed. The order passed by this Court dated 24.04.2015 disposing the original petition is recalled.
SD/-
K. RAMAKRISHNAN,
JV JUDGE