Kerala High Court
Ramla vs The District Police Chief, ... on 3 June, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 13TH JYAISHTA, 1944
RP NO. 469 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 3833/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/3RD PARTIES:
1 RAMLA
AGED 48 YEARS
W/O ISMAYIL, IBRAHIMINTE PURAKKAL HOUSE,
THANALUR P.O, K.PURAM, TIRUR TALUK,
MALAPPURAM,, PIN - 676307
2 SULFIKAR ALI
AGED 26 YEARS
S/O ISMAYIL, IBRAHIMINTE PURAKKAL HOUSE,
THANALUR P.O, K.PURAM, TIRUR TALUK,
MALAPPURAM,, PIN - 676307
3 SHAFEEQUE
AGED 24 YEARS
S/O ISMAYIL, IBRAHIMINTE PURAKKAL HOUSE,
THANALUR P.O, K.PURAM, TIRUR TALUK,
MALAPPURAM,, PIN - 676307
BY ADV MANAS P HAMEED
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS & WRIT PETITIONER :
1 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, MALAPPURAM
DOWN HILL,MALAPPURAM P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676519
2 CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRUR
TIRUR P.O,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676101
3 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
TIRUR POLICE STATION,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676101
4 TALUK SURVEYOR, TIRUR,
TALUK OFFICE, TIRUR, MINI CIVIL STATION BUILDING, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 676101
5 ISMAYIL
S/O YAHU, IBRAHINTEPURAKKAL, VAKKAD P.O,
TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676105
RP NO. 469 OF 2022
2
6 ASHRAF
S/O YAHU, IBRAHIMINTEPURAKKAL,
VAKKAD P.O, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676105
7 SUBAIDA
AGED 50 YEARS
D/O USSAN, ASIKKINTE PURAKKAL (H), TIRUR TALUK, MANGALAM AMSOM,
KOOTAYI DESOM,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676562
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI JAMSHEED HAFIZ-SC
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.06.2022, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RP NO. 469 OF 2022
3
ORDER
This petition, seeking review of the judgment of this Court
dated 21.12.2021, has been impelled with a rather strange
contention, that the original 5 th respondent - who was subsequently
deleted, was mentally incapacitated at the time when Ext.P1
judgment was delivered by the Civil Court. The petitioners, who are
the legal heirs of the said original respondent, say that since Ext.P1
was delivered at a time when the afore said person was not keeping
mentally well, it cannot be enforced against him or his legal heirs.
They thus pray that the directions of this Court be vacated.
2. I am afraid that I cannot find favour with the afore
submissions of Sri.Manas P. Hameed - learned counsel for the
petitioners, because the only direction issued by this Court to the 3 rd
respondent is to afford adequate protection to the writ petitioner and
her employees, as long as she acts in terms of Ext.P1 judgment. If the
review petitioners have a case that Ext.P1 judgment of the Civil Court
is not proper, their remedy is to have it set aside through a
sanctioned method, but not by seeking a review of the judgment of
this Court. As long as the declarations of the Civil Court are in force,
this Court will be justified in ordering that same be implemented
without any let or interference from any other person.
RP NO. 469 OF 2022
Resultantly, leaving open all the contentions of the review
petitioners to be pursued by them before the competent Forum, as
they may be advised, I close this review petition; however, clarifying
that the directions herein will apply only until such time as Ext.P1 is
in force and that if it is set aside through a process of law in future,
then the parties will certainly abide by the same.
SD/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
rp
RP NO. 469 OF 2022
APPENDIX OF RP 469/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF W.P.(C).NO.3833 OF
2021 FILED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF MEDICAL RECORDS OF DECEASED ISMAYIL,
OF THE YEAR 2000
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF DEATH CERTIFICATE DATED 23.02.2021
ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS,
VETTOM GRAMA PANCHAYAT
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF PLAINT IN O.S.NO.41/2022 FILED BY THE
REVIEW PETITIONERS BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT TIRUR
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FILED BY ADVOCATE OF THE
REVIEW PETITIONERS FOR GETTING THE COPY OF SUIT
REGISTER OF O.S.NO.50/2001
