Mureleedharan vs Keraleeya Ayurveda Samajam
2022 Latest Caselaw 11590 Ker

RP NO. 853 OF 2022 in                  1
OP(C)No. 1577 of 2022


                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                   PRESENT
                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
   TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944
                            RP NO. 853 OF 2022
    JUDGMENT DATED 22.8.2022 IN OP(C) 1577/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF
                                   KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT:

             MURELEEDHARAN
             AGED 68 YEARS
             S/O. LATE SARADHAMMA,
             KUTTIKKATTIL NAIR VEETTIL,
             CHUDUVALATHUR AMSOM DESOM,
             SHORNUR (PO),
             PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679123
             BY ADVS.
             BINOY VASUDEVAN
             SREEJITH SREENATH


RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & 2ND RESPONDENT:

     1       KERALEEYA AYURVEDA SAMAJAM
             SHORNUR
             PIN - 679 123,
             REG. NO.4(47), (2-17-40-41)
             REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,
             M.MURALEEDHARAN,S/O. NARAYANAN NAIR,
             KERALEEYA AYURVEDA SAMAJAM,
             SHORNUR,PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679123
     2       M.MURALEEDHARAN
             S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR,
             PRESIDENT, KERALEEYA AYURVEDA SAMAJAM,
             SHORNAUR,PALAKKAD DISTRICT,, PIN - 679123
     3       REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES
             DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) OFFICE,
             CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
             BY ADV SMT.NISHA GEORGE
             R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.SHYLAJA


      THIS   REVIEW     PETITION   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
20.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 RP NO. 853 OF 2022 in              2
OP(C)No. 1577 of 2022


                            ORDER

The review petition is filed for a clarification that this

Court had stayed the operation and implementation of

Ext.P6 order for a period of one week from 22.8.2022, only

to enable the review petitioner to move the appellate court

and file an appeal, and this Court has not expressed

anything on the merits of Ext.P6 order.

2. The petitioner apprehends that the respondents

may make an attempt before the court below, that this

Court had stayed Ext.P6 order for a period of one week

doubting its merits and correctness. Hence, the review

petition is necessitated.

3. Heard; Sri. Binoy Vasudevan, the learned counsel

appearing for the review petitioner, Smt. Nisha George,

the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2

and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 3 rd

respondent.

4. This Court had entertained the original petition

only in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the

case, as there was no sitting before appellate court on 22 nd

OP(C)No. 1577 of 2022

and 23rd of August, 2022 and the review petitioner was left

remediless to challenge Ext.P6 order. This Court stayed

the operation and implementation of Ext.P6 order for a

period of one week only, to enable the review petitioner to

file the appeal.

5. It is conceded by both sides that the petitioners

have filed an appeal before the court below within the

specified time period challenging Ext.P6 order. Although,

the impugned judgment is unambiguous, to remove all

doubts, this Court makes it clear that this Court has not

gone into the merits of Ext.P6 order, but only stayed its

operation for a period of one week to enable the

petitioners to work out the statutory remedy.

Consequently, the appellate court is directed to consider

and dispose of the appeal, in accordance with law, and on

its merits.

The review petition is disposed of with the above

observations.

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS, JUDGE okb/20.12.22 //True copy// P.S. to Judge