IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP No. 387 of 2008(G)
1. E.V.FRANCIS, AGED 49, S/O.VAREED
... Petitioner
2. E.V.POULOSE, S/O.VAREED
Vs
1. P.G.BABY, PADAYATTIL HOUSE
... Respondent
2. THE TALUK SURVEYOR, TALUK OFFICE, ALUVA.
3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
4. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY
For Petitioner :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :04/04/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
===============
R.P.No.387 OF 2008
IN W.P.(C) NO. 2585 OF 2008
====================
Dated this the 4th day of April, 2008
O R D E R
Respondents 4 and 6 in WP(C) No.2585/08 are the review
petitioners. The writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage
directing that the 1st respondent shall take necessary action for completing
the survey and submitting a report called for by the 2nd respondent with
notice to the affected parties. The direction was issued on the basis of
Ext.P4.
2. Respondents now submit that in respect of this very same
subject matter, OS 508/06 has been filed by the petitioner seeking
recovery of the land which is the subject matter of Ext.P4. They also would
state that WP(C) No.31582/06 concerning the very same land is pending
before this court. According to them, it was without disclosing all these,
the writ petition has been filed.
3. I am inclined to agree with the counsel for the review
petitioner that these facts were not disclosed and had these details been
RP 387/08
:2 :
disclosed, the case would not have been disposed of without notice to the
other side.
In view of the above, I feel the judgment in WP(c) No.2585/08
deserves to be recalled and I do so.
ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE.
Rp