T.K.Jaya Raman vs P.P.Rajendran
2022 Latest Caselaw 2125 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
    THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 5TH PHALGUNA, 1943
                           RP NO. 219 OF 2022
REVIEW PETITIONER/S:

           T.K.JAYA RAMAN
           AGED 74 YEARS
           S/O. T.K. KUNHIRAMAN, DIRECTOR, CHOVVA EDUCATIONAL
           SOCIETY, POST CHOVVA, KANNUR-670 006.(NOW FUNCTIONING AS
           THE PRESIDENT OF THE CHOVVA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY REG
           NO.S.6/45 P O CHOVVA, KANNUR-670006) RESIDING AT "SREE
           VILLA" THOTTADA, EDAKKAD AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.
           BY ADVS.
           K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)
           T.RAMPRASAD UNNI
           S.M.PRASANTH
           G.RENJITH
           R.S.ASWINI SANKAR
           ARAVIND.T.H


RESPONDENT/S:

     1     P.P.RAJENDRAN
           S/O. T. KUNHIKANNAN, DIRECTOR, CHOVVA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY
           POST, CHOVVA, KANNUR-670 006
     2     T.K.GIREESHAN.
           AGED 64 YEARS
           S/O. T.K. KUMARAN, DIRECTOR, CHOVVA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,
           CHOVVA POST, KANNUR 670 006.
     3     T.K.SUSEELA.
           AGED 87 YEARS
           D/O.GOVINDAN, THANDAYANKANDI HOUSE, POST CHOVVA, KANNUR
           670 006.
     4     T.K.SUMOD.
           AGED 60 YEARS
           S/O. T.K.KUMARAN, THANDAYANKANDI HOUSE, POST, CHOVVA,
           KANNUR 670 006.
     5     T.K.HAREESHKUMAR
           AGED 53 YEARS
           S/O. T.K. SUKUMARAN, LAB ASSISTANT, THANDAYANKANDI HOUSE,
           POST, CHOVVA, KANNUR 670 006.
     6     T.K.SHEENA
 RP NO. 219 OF 2022
                                 2

           AGED 47 YEARS
           D/O. T.K. SUKUMARAN, LAB ASSISTANT, THANDAYANKANDI HOUSE,
           POST, CHOVVA, KANNUR 670 006.
     7     DEEPAK BALAKRISHNAN
           AGED 57 YEARS
           S/O. A. BALAKRISHNAN, KRISHNA DEEPAM, MUZHAPPILANGAD
           POST, KANNUR DISTRICT 670 662
     8     T.P.SREESHAJ
           AGED 51 YEARS
           S/O. LATE KARUNAKARAN, KARUNA NIVAS, POST CHOVVA, KANNUR
           DIST. 670 006.
     9     M.C.RAMESHAN
           AGED 57 YEARS
           ADVOCATE, NO. 521, TRADE CENTRE, YOGASALA ROAD, KANNUR-
           670 001
    10     C.T.YATHEENDRADAS.
           AGED 73 YEARS
           S/O. RAGHAVAN, APARNA, KAKKAT, KANNUR 670 005, NOW
           RESIDING AT GM NILAYAM, CHE 16/216 NEAR MAHA SIVA TEMPLE,
           CHOVVA POST, KANNUR 670 006.
    11     C.T.SUDHEENDRAN
           AGED 65 YEARS
           S/O. C.K. RAGHAVAN, 4C, SREEROSH VILLA, ANAYIDUKKU, POST
           THANA, KANNUR 670 012.
    12     T.P.PRAKASH
           AGED 80 YEARS
           S/O. C.KUMARAN, THANDAYANKANDI HOUSE, CHOVVA POST, KANNUR
           670 006.
    13     THE PRINCIPAL
           CHOVVA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, CHOVVA POST, KANNUR-670
           006
    14     VALSALAKUMAR.
           AGED 68 YEARS
           S/O. KUMARAN, BUSINESS, "VISHNY", POST CHOVVA, KANNUR 670
           006.
OTHER PRESENT:

           GP VENUGOPAL V.


     THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.02.2022,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 RP NO. 219 OF 2022
                                        3

                                 ORDER

Dated this the 24th day of February, 2022

This review petition is filed aggrieved by the direction to expedite the

decision in O.S No.530/2016. The error pointed out is the failure of this

Court to issue notice and hear the petitioner before passing the order, in

spite of the petitioners being made parties to the original petition.

2.I have heard Senior Advocate K. Ramkumar for the petitioners and

Adv. A Krishnan appearing for the respondents / original petitioners.

3. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the direction for time

bound disposal of the suit without hearing the petitioners has caused

substantial prejudice to the petitioner, he being the 6th defendant in the

suit.

I find substantial merit in the contention in as much as this court

omitted to issue notice and afford an opportunity of hearing to the

respondents before disposing of the original petition. For the

aforementioned reason, the review petition is allowed and the judgment is

recalled.

Sd/-

V.G ARUN JUDGE

SJ