Kerala High Court
Thaha vs Nadayara Muslim Jama €“ Ath, ... on 12 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 22ND POUSHA, 1944
RP NO. 1254 OF 2022
WP(C) 24658/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/S:
1 THAHA,AGED 79 YEARS
S/O ABDUL AZEEZ, RESIDING AT KALIYIL VEEDU,
NADAYARA, VARKALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695141
2 MUHAMMED BASHEER,AGED 76 YEARS
S/O ABDUL RAHIM, RESIDING AT KALLUVILAKAM,
NADAYARA, VARKALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695141
3 REFEEK,AGED 44 YEARS
S/O ABDUL RAHIM, RESIDING AT ADACHAVILA, NADAYARA,
VARKALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695141
4 SIYAD,AGED 50 YEARS
S/O ABDUL GAFFOR, RESIDING AT THUNDUVILA,
NADAYARA, VARKALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695141
BY ADVS.
R.N.SANDEEP
KEERTHI VIJAYAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 NADAYARA MUSLIM JAMA - ATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS
GENERAL SECRETARY, SHIHABUDEEN @ SABU,
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O IBRAHIM KUTTY, RESIDING AT THODIYIL VEEDU,
KANNAMBA, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695141
RP NO. 1254 OF 2022
-2-
2 M.A. SATHAR, PRESIDENT NADAYARA MUSLIM JAMA - ATH
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE,AGED 70 YEARS
S/O MUHAMMED KUNJU, RESIDING AT K.K. HOUSE,
NADAYARA, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695141
3 KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY,KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD, VIP ROAD,
KALOOR, COCHIN, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682017
4 THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA STATE WAKF
BOARD,VIP ROAD, KALOOR, COCHIN, ERNAKULAM, PIN -
682017
5 DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE
DYSP, ,OFFICE OF THE DYSP, VARKALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695141
BY ADVS.
M.RAJENDRAN NAIR
Jamsheed Hafiz
M.SANTHY
SREEDHARAN NAIR M.
OTHER PRESENT:
ADV. P. M. SHAMEER - GP
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
RP NO. 1254 OF 2022
-3-
S.V.BHATTI
& BASANT BALAJI, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
R.P. No. 1254 of 2022
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ORDER
(Dated this the 12th day of January 2023)
Basant Balaji J.,
This review petition is filed to review the judgment in
W.P.(C) No.24658 of 2022 dated 7.11.2022 wherein the
Writ Petition was disposed of appointing two advocate
commissioners for conduct of the election to the Jama-ath
and to complete the election process and declare results
within the time limit.
2. The counsel for the petitioner submits that
respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed Writ Petition suppressing
material facts. This court, while disposing the case, has
RP NO. 1254 OF 2022
taken note of the submission of the counsel for the
petitioners as well as respondent Nos.4 to 7 that a
settlement has been arrived at between the parties with
regard to the election to be conducted to the office of the
Jama-ath and that a few suggestions were also made on
behalf of the aspects for the conduct of the election. The
counsel for the petitioner submits that no settlement has
been arrived between the parties with regard to the election
and it was a factual error that the judgment was rendered.
3. As per the judgment under review, two Advocate
Commissioners were appointed for conduct of the election
and they were given liberty to finalise the voters list and
conduct the election in accordance with law and declare
results. The petitioner does not have a case that there is an
RP NO. 1254 OF 2022
error apparent on the face of the record. The only
contention is that there was no settlement arrived at
between the parties with regard to the election to be
conducted and the said fact was brought to the notice of
the court.
4. An application for review of judgment, under Order
47 Rule 1 CPC, shall be on the following grounds:
(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved,-
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is
allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is
allowed, or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small
Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and
important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of
due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not
RP NO. 1254 OF 2022
be produced by him at the time when the decree was
passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or
error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other
sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree
passed or order made against him, may apply for a review
of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made
the order.
(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order
may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the
pendency of an appeal by some other party except where
the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant
and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can
present to the Appellate Court the case on which he
applies for the review.
5. The grounds available to the petitioners for
invoking Order 47 Rule 1 CPC are lacking in this revision
petition. If the petitioner has a grievance that there was no
settlement arrived at between the parties for conduct of the
RP NO. 1254 OF 2022
election, it is not through this review petition that can be
remedied. Accordingly, we find that there is no error
apparent on the face of the record and consequently, the
Petition fails.
In the result, this Review Petition is dismissed.
SD/-
S.V.BHATTI,
JUDGE
SD/-
BASANT BALAJI,
JUDGE
dl/
RP NO. 1254 OF 2022
APPENDIX OF RP 1254/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE REGISTER
PAGE DATED 28/08/2022 RELATING TO
MARRIAGE OF MR. SAMNAD
