Kerala High Court
Vincent Mathew vs Leelamma on 11 April, 2024
Author: P.Somarajan
Bench: P.Somarajan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
THURSDAY, THE 11th DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1946
RP NO. 690 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.03.2019 IN SA NO.277 OF 2001 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT:
VINCENT MATHEW, AGED 58 YEARS,
S/o MATHEW, RESIDING AT KUNNATHUPARA HOUSE,
VELLILAPPALLY VILLAGE, EZHACHERRY KARA, PIN-686 651
BY ADVS. M.NARENDRA KUMAR
SRI.P.C.HARIDAS
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 LEELAMMA, AGED 67 YEARS,
W/o MANY,RESIDING AT KAVIYIL,
ANTHINADU KARA, LALAM VILLAGE, PIN-686 574
2 K.T.JOSEPH, AGED 59 YEARS, (DIED, LRs IMPLEADED)
S/o THOMAS, RESIDING AT KAVIYIL,
ANTHINADU KARA, LALAM VILLAGE, PIN-686 574
3 KURIAN ROSAMMA, AGED 57 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KUNNATHUPARA PLATHOTTATHIL,
ANTHINADU KARA, LALAM VILLAGE, PIN-686 574
4 THOMAS KURIAN, AGED 63 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KUNNATHUPARA PLATHOTTATHIL,
ANTHINADU KARA, LALAM VILLAGE, PIN-686 574
ADDL JAIN JOSEPH, AGED 65 YEARS,
R5 W/o LATE K.T.JOSEPH, KAVIYIL KALAPPURAKKAL,
ANTHINADU P.O., KOTTAYAM,PIN-686 574.
ADDL CHRISTY TOM JOSEPH, AGED 32 YEARS,
R6 D/o LATE K.T.JOSEPH, KAVIYIL KALAPPURAKKAL,
ANTHINADU P.O., KOTTAYAM,PIN-686 574.
R.P.Nos.690 & 732 of 2019 2
ADDL NEETHU MARY JOSEPH, AGED 28 YEARS,
R7 D/o LATE K.T.JOSEPH, KAVIYIL KALAPPURAKKAL,
ANTHINADU P.O., KOTTAYAM,PIN-686 574.
ADDL GEETHU ALPHONSE JOSEPH, AGED 25 YEARS,
R8 D/o LATE K.T.JOSEPH, KAVIYIL KALAPPURAKKAL,
ANTHINADU P.O., KOTTAYAM,PIN-686 574.
(LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DECEASED 2ND
RESPONDENT ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS
5 TO 8 AS PER ORDER DATED 14.09.2022 IN IA.1/2019
IN RP.690/2019 IN SA.277/2001)
BY ADV G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.04.2024, ALONG WITH RP.732/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
R.P.Nos.690 & 732 of 2019 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
THURSDAY, THE 11th DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1946
RP NO. 732 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.03.2019 IN SA NO.278 OF 2001 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT:
VINCENT MATHEW, AGED 58 YEARS,
S/o MATHEW, RESIDING AT KUNNATHUPARA HOUSE,
VELLILAAPPALLY VILLAGE, EZHACHERRY KARA,
PIN- 686651.
BY ADVS. M.NARENDRA KUMAR
P.C.HARIDAS
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 JOSEPH THOMAS, (DIED, LRS IMPLEADED)
AGED 59 YEARS, S/o THOMAS,
RESIDING AT KAVIYIL, ANTHINADU KARA,
LALAM VILLAGE, PIN- 686574.
2 LEELAMMA MANI, AGED 67 YEARS,
W/o MANI, RESIDING AT KAVIYIL, ANTHINADU KARA,
LALAM VILLAGE, PIN- 686574.
3 OUSEPH, AGED 60 YEARS,
S/o MATHEW, RESIDING AT KUNNATHUPARA HOUSE,
EZHACHERRY KARA, VELLILAPPALLY VILLAGE,
PIN- 686651.
4 AVIRAH, AGED 58 YEARS,
S/o MATHEW, RESIDING AT KUNNATHUPARA HOUSE,
EZHACHERRY KARA, VELLILAPPALLY VILLAGE,
PIN- 686651.
5 DOMINIC, AGED 54 YEARS,
S/o MATHEW, RESIDING AT KUNNATHUPARA HOUSE,
R.P.Nos.690 & 732 of 2019 4
EZHACHERRY KARA, VELLILAPPALLY VILLAGE,
PIN- 686651.
6 SEBASTAN, AGED 48 YEARS,
S/o MATHEW, RESIDING AT KUNNATHUPARA HOUSE,
EZHACHERRY KARA, VELLILAPPALLY VILLAGE,
PIN- 686651.
ADDL.R7 JAIN JOSEPH, AGED 65 YEARS,
W/o LATE K.T.JOSEPH, KAVIYIL KALAPPURAKKAL,
ANTHINADU P.O., KOTTAYAM,PIN-686 574.
ADDL.R8 CHRISTY TOM JOSEPH, AGED 32 YEARS,
D/o LATE K.T.JOSEPH, KAVIYIL KALAPPURAKKAL,
ANTHINADU P.O., KOTTAYAM,PIN-686 574.
ADDL.R9 NEETHU MARY JOSEPH, AGED 28 YEARS,
D/o LATE K.T.JOSEPH, KAVIYIL KALAPPURAKKAL,
ANTHINADU P.O., KOTTAYAM,PIN-686 574.
ADDL.R10 GEETHU ALPHONSE JOSEPH, AGED 25 YEARS, D/o LATE
K.T.JOSEPH, KAVIYIL KALAPPURAKKAL, ANTHINADU P.O.,
KOTTAYAM,PIN-686 574.
(LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED RESPONDENT 1 ARE
IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 7 TO 10 AS PER
ORDER DATED 14.09.2022 IN IA.2/2019 IN RP.732/2019
IN SA.278/2001)
BY ADV SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.04.2024, ALONG WITH RP.690/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
R.P.Nos.690 & 732 of 2019 5
ORDER
These review petitions were filed mainly on the
ground that this court has failed to notice the
factum of an amendment by incorporating a prayer for
mandatory injunction at the trial stage. It is
further submitted that amendment was allowed
overlooking the provisions and the same was raised as
an apparent error on the face of record. It is not a
matter taken up either in the trial court or in the
first appellate court. Necessarily, it cannot be
brought under the purview of substantial question of
law in a second appeal. No such question was framed
at the second appellate stage. As such, there is no
apparent error on the face of record. Hence, both
the review petitions will stand dismissed
accordingly.
Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN
JUDGE
DMR/-
