Unni vs The Director General Of Police
2022 Latest Caselaw 5760 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
        FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 6TH JYAISHTA, 1944
                           RP NO. 354 OF 2022


REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

            UNNI, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. PRABHAKARAN,
            VALAKKATTIL HOUSE, KURAVILANGAD KARA,
            MEENACIL TALUK, KURAVILANGAD P.O.,
            KOTTATYAM, PIN- 686633

            BY ADV M.NARENDRA KUMAR


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

    1       THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
            OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

    2       DEPUTY SUPRERIENTENDENT OF POLICE
            OFFICE OF DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
            VAIKKOM, KOTTAYAM , PIN - 686141

    3       STATION HOUSE OFFICER (CIRCLE INSPECTOR)
            KURAVILANGAD POLICE STATION, KURAVILANGAD P.O,
            KOTTAYAM , PIN - 686633

    4       SUNNY SEBASTIAN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. DEVASYA @
            SEBASTIAN,PALLIVADAKKEDATHU HOUSE, KURAVILANGAD
            KARA, KURAVILANGAD VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK,
            KURAVILANGAD P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN- 686633,
            PIN - 686633

    5       ALEYAMMA KURIAKOSE, AGED 71 YEARS
            W/O KURIAKOSE, MURICKAL HOUSE, MEENACHIL TALUK,
            KURAVILANGAD KARA, KURAVILANGAD VILLAGE, MEENACHIL
            TALUK, KURAVILANGAD P.O. KOTTAYAM , PIN - 686633


            SMT MABLE C KURIAN SR GP


     THIS   REVIEW   PETITION   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
27.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 RP 354/22
                                              2



                                   O R D E R

This petition, seeking review of the judgment of this Court

dated 18.11.2021, has been impelled asserting that the

competent Civil Court has already delivered a final judgment

and decree in the disputes between the parties, as is evident

from Exts.P1 and P2.

2. Even when I hear Sri.M.Narendra Kumar - learned

counsel for the petitioner, on the afore lines, it does not require

this Court to modify the judgment because, what I have

directed is that the parties must abide by the orders from the

Civil Court to be obtained in future. If such orders have already

been issued, as has been stated by the learned counsel for the

petitioner, necessarily, the parties will have to accede to its

terms and I do not think that this Court requires to make any

modification.

Resultantly, this Review Petition is closed; however,

clarifying that the intent of this Court was that the parties must RP 354/22

abide by every judgment or decree of the Civil Court - either

issued or to be issued in future.

Sd/-

RR                                      DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
                                             JUDGE
 RP 354/22




                 APPENDIX OF RP 354/2022

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure A         THE TRUE COPY OF THE PAINT IN O.S.

NO.229/2021 IN THE COURT OF MUNSIFFS, PALA FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT, DATED 21.10.2021