Kerala High Court
Satish Murthi vs Nil on 8 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
FRIDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 18TH POUSHA, 1942
RP.No.7 OF 2020 IN WA. 1013/2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.06.2016 IN WA 1013/2016 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN THE WRIT PETITION:
SATISH MURTHI,
AGED 56 YEARS
2ND FLOOR, BETA PLAZA. DR. KRISHANSWAMY ROAD,
KOCHI 682 035.
BY SATISH MURTHI, (PARTY IN PERSON)
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN THE APPEAL/RESPONDENT 1 TO 3 IN WRIT
PETITION:
1 PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY
NEAR MUNICIPAL TOWN HALL, PALAKKAD-1, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY.
2 K.V. VAIDYANATHN,
SON OF LATE VISWANATHA JOSIER, SARASWATHY G.R. PURAM,
PALAKKAD 673 003.
3 THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER,
ART AND HERITAGE COMMISSION, POOJAPURA, VIKAS BHAVAN,
PALAYAM, TRIVANDRUM 33.
R1 BY SRI. BINOY VASUDEVAN, SC
R3 BY SRI. TEK CHAND, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.01.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
R.P. NO. 7 OF 2020 :2:
in W.A. NO. 1013/2016
Dated this the 8th day of January, 2021.
ORDER
SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
This review petition is filed seeking to review the common
judgment in Writ Appeal Nos. 1013, 1017 and 1025 of 2016 dated
27.06.2016.
2. The paramount contention advanced in the review petition is
that O.S. No. 546 of 2013 is pending before the Munsiff's Court,
Palakkad by and between the parties and in view of the same, if the
findings in the judgment of the learned single Judge and the Division
Bench that the review petitioner is not a co-owner and that he has not
produced any material to substantiate that plea, it would seriously
prejudice the review petitioner in the suit proceedings. Further that the
review petitioner being an advocate practicing in the Supreme Court,
if certain observations made in the judgment affecting the character
and conduct is not removed, it will materially affect the professional
practice of the review petitioner. The review petitioner has also
submitted that he has various credentials in his favour and if the
adverse observations made against the personal conduct without any
in W.A. NO. 1013/2016
materials on record is not removed, it is likely to seriously affect the
future of the petitioner.
3. The sum and substance of the contention advanced by the
petitioner is that the findings and observations contained in paragraph
6 of the judgment is not at all true or correct and the same is observed
by the Division Bench without verifying the truth and veracity of the
same. It is also pointed out that if a clarification is not made with
respect to the finding that the petitioner is not an owner of the
property which is a subject matter of O.S. No. 546 of 2013, there is
every likelihood of the civil court being carried away by the said
finding.
4. We have heard Sri. Satish Murthy appeared in person, and
perused the pleadings and materials on record.
5. At paragraph 6 of the judgment, Ext. R2(a) produced along
with the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent i.e., Sri. K.V.
Vaidyanathan, was extracted as a list of cases along with the title of
the same described as vexatious proceedings filed by the review
petitioner. And thereafter, it was observed that "the above list, which
does not include W.P.(C) No. 14455 of 2014, would show that the
appellants are bent upon preventing the second respondent from
in W.A. NO. 1013/2016
enjoying the fruits of Ext. P8 building permit and are misusing judicial
forums, in order to settle their family disputes and these writ petitions
are the culmination of that mala fide and vexatious exercise"
6. According to the review petitioner, the usage of expression
'mala fide' and 'vexatious exercise' are employed by the Division Bench
without any material finding with respect to any such aspects and
therefore, they are liable to be removed. In fact, the said finding was
rendered in the judgment on the basis of the litigations instituted by
the review petitioner before this Court as well as the civil court and
we do not think, the employment of the said expressions have any
material bearing to the character and conduct of the review petitioner.
More than that, the said observation has only bearing to the litigations
fought by and between the parties, rather than making any personal
opinion about the review petitioner.
7. In that view of the matter, and in view of the further litigation
alleged to be pending before the civil court, we clarify the aforesaid
observations accordingly.
8. So far as the second aspect is concerned, the review
petitioner has submitted that since there is a specific finding that even
though the review petitioner claims to be a co-owner, he has not
in W.A. NO. 1013/2016
produced any material to substantiate the plea is likely to affect the
pending suit proceedings, on a perusal of paragraph 11 of the
judgment, it is clear that in spite of the said observations, it was
clarified as follows:
"According to us, in this background, the finding of the learned
single Judge is fully justified and this finding cannot be of any
prejudice to the appellant, if at all this is an issue in O.S. No. 546 of
2013 pending in the civil court."
9. Therefore, it is clear that any finding rendered by the
Division Bench as above was on the basis of the materials on record
and we have no reason to think that the civil court will not consider the
entire aspects of the issues raised by the parties and the records
produced before it to substantiate their respective claims. The said
aspect is clarified accordingly. However, we make it clear the review
petitioner has submitted before us that the issue with respect to the
construction of the building on the basis of the plan and permit
secured by the second respondent, Sri. K. V Vaidyanathan from the
Palakkad Municipality, no more survives and in the suit proceedings as
above, there are no issues raised with respect to the construction of
the building. The above clarifications are made, since it was pleaded
by the review petitioner at the time of the arguments that the review
petitioner would be satisfied by clarifying the above said aspects and
in W.A. NO. 1013/2016
he is not pressing for the review of the judgment as such.
The review petition is disposed of with the above said
clarifications.
S. MANIKUMAR,
CHIEF JUSTICE.
SHAJI P. CHALY,
JUDGE.
Rv
in W.A. NO. 1013/2016
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26TH NOVEMBER, 2013 BY
SENIOR ADVOCATE AND ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIA, SRI. K.K. VENUGOPAL.
ANNEXURE A2: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20TH JANUARY, 2014 BY SENIOR
ADVOCATE SRI. RAJEEV DHAVAN.
ANNEXURE A3: TRUE COPY OF LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION DATED 11TH APRIL,
2000 BY LATE SRI. V.R. KRISHNAN IYER, (FORMER JUDGE, SUPREME COURT).
ANNEXURE A4: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 18TH APRIL, 2016 REGADRING
COMMENCEMENT OF TRAINING FOR ADVOCATE ON RECORD.
ANNEXURE A5: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO. 25979 OF 2013
DATED 5TH NOVEMBER, 2013.
ANNEXURE A6: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P(C) NO. 31141 OF 2013 DATED
13TH FEBRUARY, 2014.
ANNEXURE A7: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO. 27247 OF 2013(E)
DATED 4TH DECEMBER, 2013.
ANNEXURE A8: TRUE COPY OF PRINT OUT OF THE CASE STATUS OF WPC 7280/14
TAKEN ON 24TH MAY, 2016.
ANNEXURE A9: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO. 7280 OF 2014 DATED
8TH AUGUST, 2014.
ANNEXURE A10: TRUE COPY OF FAMILY TREE OF THE PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE A11: TRUE COPY OF FLOW DIAGRAM OF EACH OF THE CASES FILED BY
THE PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE A12: TRUE COPY OF THE I.A. NO. 16427/2015 IN W.P.(C) NO. 7997 OF
2014 DATED 11TH NOVEMBER, 2015.
ANNEXURE A13: REPORT OF THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER, PALAKKAD DATED
22.03.2013.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
