Kerala High Court
Dr. Ravi Keezhedath vs State Of Kerala on 3 June, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
Friday, the 3rd day of June 2022 / 13th Jyaishta, 1944
IA.NO.1/2022 IN WP(C) NO. 11257 OF 2021(F)
PETITIONER/5TH RESPONDENT:
SRI.KUNHEETHU HAJI, SON OF MUHAMED, POKLASSERY HOUSE, TANALUR P.O.,
TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676302.
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 & 6:
1. DR. RAVI KEEZHEDATH, AGED 45 YEARS, SON OF UNNIKRISHNA MENON,
RESIDING AT ARYAMKULAM HOUSE, ANNARA P.O., TRIKANDIYUR AMSOM, DESOM,
TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676101, MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KASSANDRA HEALTH CARE PVT.LTD., ANNARA P.O., TIRUR.
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF
KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM AND CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT DISASTER
MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM-676505.
4. THE TANUR BLOCK PANCHAYAT, TANUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676302,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
5. THE TANALUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, TANALUR, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN-676307., REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
6. SRI.MUHAMMED NISAR, SON OF KUNHEETHU HAJI, POKLASSERY HOUSE, TANALUR
P.O., TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676302.
Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the
affidavit filed therewith the High Court be pleased to modify the
operative part of the judgment in WP(C) No.11257/2021 by issuing a
direction to the District Court, Manjeri to place O.S.No.212/2020 pending
before the Munsiff's Court, Tirur before the Sub Court, Tirur and to post
the same along with O.S. No.4/2021.
This Application coming on for orders upon perusing the application
and the affidavit filed in support thereof, and this Court's
Judgment dated 21.02.2022 and upon hearing the arguments
of SRI. K.P.SUDHEER, ADVOCATE for the petitioner/respondent 5 in IA/WP(C),
SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR SENIOR ADVOCATE along with M/S.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI,
S.M.PRASANTH, G.RENJITH, R.S.ASWINI SANKAR &.H.ARAVIND, Advocates for the
petitioner in WP(C) and respondent 1 in IA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
respondents 2 & 3 in IA and respondents 1&2 in WP(C), SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN,
Advocate for the respondent 5 in IA and respondent 4 in WP(C) and of SRI.
R.SUDHIR, Advocate for the respondent 6 in IA/ WP(C), the court passed the
following:
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
------------------------------------
I.A.No. 1/2022
in
W.P.(C.) No. 11257 of 2021
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2022
ORDER
This is a petition filed to modify the operative part of the
judgment in W.P.(C.) No. 11257/2021 by issuing a direction to
District Court, Manjeri to place O.S. No.212/2020 pending
before the Munsiff Court, Tirur before the Sub Court, Tirur and
to post the same along with O.S.No. 4/2021. The relevant
portion of the judgment for which the modification is sought in
this petition is extracted hereunder :
"It is also submitted that O.S. No.212/2020 is pending before
the Munsiff Court, Tirur. The Sub Judge can decide whether
that suit is to be called for and the Sub-Judge is free to take
appropriate steps in that regard or the parties can take
appropriate steps to call for that suit to the Sub-Court, Tirur."
2. Heard the learned senior counsel, Sri.P.K. Suresh
Kumar for the petitioner and the learned senior counsel
IA No.1/2022
in
Sri.K.Ramkumar for the respondents. The counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the learned Sub Judge is not in a
position to call for the suit and it will take time to file a transfer
petition to transfer the case to the Sub Court. Therefore, the
sum and substance of the argument is that this Court may order
that the suit pending before the Munsiff Court stands
transferred to the Sub Court, Tirur. The senior counsel relied the
judgment of the Apex Court in K.A.Ansari and anr. v. Indian
Airlines Ltd [(2009) 2 SCC 164]. The counsel for the
respondent also relied the same judgment. The senior counsel
also relied the judgment of the Apex Court in State of U.P. v.
Shri.Brahm Datt Sharma and anr. [AIR 1987 SC 943] and the
judgment of the Division Bench in W.P.(C.) No. 10727/2019.
3. This Court considered the contention of the petitioner
and the respondents.
4. This Court already disposed of the writ petition as per
judgment dated 21.2.2022. Now, a modification is sought in this
IA No.1/2022
in
interlocutory application. The Apex Court in K.A.Ansari's case
(supra) observed like this :
"15. Per contra, Mr. R. S. Suri, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the Indian Airlines, supporting the order of the Division
Bench, submitted that when the proceedings stood terminated
on final disposal of the writ petitions, it was not open to the
learned Single Judge to reopen the proceedings on filing of the
miscellaneous application by the appellant in respect of the same
subject matter.
16. It is trite that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a
judgment merely for the purpose of rehearing and a fresh
decision of the case. It needs little emphasis that when the
proceedings stand terminated by final disposal of the writ
petition, it is not open to the Court to reopen the proceedings by
means of miscellaneous application in respect of a matter which
provides fresh cause of action. If this principle is not followed,
there would be confusion and chaos and the finality of
proceedings would cease to have any meaning. (See -- State of
Uttar Pradesh v. Brahm Datt Sharma and Another, 1987 KHC
918 : 1987 (2) SCC 179 : 1987 (3) ATC 319 : AIR 1987 SC 943 :
1987 Lab IC 689 : 1987 (1) LLN 768). At the same time, there is
no prohibition on a party applying for clarification, if the order is
not clear and the party against whom it has been made is trying
to take advantage because the order is couched in ambiguous or
IA No.1/2022
in
equivocal words.
5. It is true that the Apex Court observed that there is no
prohibition on a party applying for clarification if the order is not
clear and the party against whom it has been made is trying to
take advantage because the order is couched in ambiguous or
equivocal words. I anxiously considered the contention of the
petitioner and the portion of the judgment, which is sought to be
modified. There is absolutely no ambiguity in the above
judgment. This Court observed that the Sub Judge can decide
whether the suit is to be called for. Hence, the Sub Judge is free
to take appropriate steps in that regard. But it is also observed
that the parties can take appropriate steps to call for that suit to
the Sub Court, Tirur. The senior counsel, who appeared for the
petitioner submitted that the Sub Judge has no power to call for
the suit from the Munsiff Court. If that is the case, the parties
can approach the proper court with a transfer petition. The
petitioner can file a transfer petition and bring to the notice of
IA No.1/2022
in
the court concerned about the urgency to transfer the case. I am
sure that the court concerned will consider that request in a
proper and pragmatic manner. In such circumstances, no
modification is necessary in the judgment dated 21.2.2022.
Therefore, this interlocutory application is dismissed with
liberty to the parties to approach the court concerned with
transfer application, in accordance to law.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
SKS
03-06-2022 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
