Judgment · High Court · 2006
Case at a glance
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Anyhow, the review petitioners have no case either in M.F.A.No.1181/94 or in the review petition, that the appellant was a party to the said SLP. Necessarily, that judgment cannot determine the right between the parties in this appeal/review petition. So, we see no reason…
- Para 77. HAMSA, S/O.LATE MAMMOOTTY, RESIDING AT DO. DO. PATHU, D/O.LATE MAMMOOTTY, RESIDING AT DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SRI.JAMES KOSHY THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/12/2006, ALONG WITH WA NO.2225 OF 2006, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING…
Judgment
{IN M.F.A.NO.1181/1994 OF THIS COURT IN OA.27/1992 OF THE FOREST TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------------------------------------
#2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, TRIVANDRUM. CUSTODIAN OF VESTED FOREST, EX-OFFICIO SPECIAL SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SUSHEELA BHAT RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS: -----------------------------------------
#5. MAMMOOTTY, S/O.SAIDALI, PALLANICKEL HOUSE, MOOPANAD, MEPPADI P.O., WYNAD DISTRICT (EXPIRED) THITHUTTY, W/O.LATE MAMMOOTTY, RESIDING AT PALLANICKAL HOUSE, DO. DO. SAIDALAVI, S/O.LATE MAMMOOTTY, RESIDING AT DO. DO. KUNHIMOHAMMED, S/O.LATE MAMMOTTY, RESIDING AT DO. DO. ASYA, D/O.LATE MAMMOOTTY, RESIDING AT PALLANICKERI, DO. DO. RP.No. 1099 of 2006() :: 2 ::
#7. HAMSA, S/O.LATE MAMMOOTTY, RESIDING AT DO. DO. PATHU, D/O.LATE MAMMOOTTY, RESIDING AT DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SRI.JAMES KOSHY THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/12/2006, ALONG WITH WA NO.2225 OF 2006, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR & J.M.JAMES, JJ. ------------------------- C.M.Appln.No.2235 of 2006, R.P.No.1099 of 2006 in M.F.A.No.1181 of 1994 ------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of December, 2006. O R D E R Abdul Gafoor, J. C.M.Appln.No.2235 of 2006 Taking into account the exigency of the situation, even though the delay is exorbitant, we are of the view that the delay shall be condoned. We order so. R.P.No.1099 of 2006 Immediately after condoning the delay, we heard the review petitioners.
#2. The ground urged is that the order in S.L.P.No.5317/86, taken against the judgment in M.F.A.No.413/78, had not been taken note of, in spite of its mentioning in Annexure A7 counter affidavit filed even before the appeal was disposed of. R.P.No.1099 of 2006 :: 2 ::
#3. Anyhow, the review petitioners have no case either in M.F.A.No.1181/94 or in the review petition, that the appellant was a party to the said SLP. Necessarily, that judgment cannot determine the right between the parties in this appeal/review petition. So, we see no reason for entertaining this review petition on that ground. Review Petition is accordingly dismissed. (K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR) Sd/- JUDGE (J.M.JAMES) JUDGE Sd/- sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR & J.M.JAMES, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- C.M.Appln.No.2235 of 2006, R.P.No.1099 of 2006 in M.F.A.No.1181 of 1994 O R D E R 20th December, 2006. ------------------------------------------------
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.