A.S. Balasubramanian vs A.S. Ramakrishnan
2024 Latest Caselaw 13878 Ker

Kerala High Court

A.S. Balasubramanian vs A.S. Ramakrishnan on 28 May, 2024

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
    TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 7TH JYAISHTA, 1946
                          RP NO. 376 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.01.2024 IN RSA NO.158 OF 2005
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT:

             A.S. BALASUBRAMANIAN
             AGED 55 YEARS
             LATE A.K. SESHA IYER, RESIDING AT THAZHECHIRA
             PADAM, ELAVANCHERRY VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK,
             PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678001
             BY ADVS.
             K.S.BHARATHAN
             ALEENA SONY


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

    1        A.S. RAMAKRISHNAN
             S/O. A.K. SESHA IYER, RESIDING AT ALAMPALLAM
             GRAMAM, VADAVANNUR VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD
             DISTRICT,     PIN - 678001.
    2
             DILIP KUMAR,
             S/O. RAMACHANDRA MENON, RESIDING AT PUSHPA VILASAM,
             KOLLENGODE AMSOM, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
             PIN - 678001.

             SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI RENJITH GEORGE


     THIS     REVIEW   PETITION     HAVING    BEEN    FINALLY   HEARD   ON
28.05.2024,     THE    COURT   ON   THE      SAME    DAY   DELIVERED    THE
FOLLOWING:
 R.P.No.376/ 2024
in
RSA..No158/2005                          2




                           A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
                   ================================
                              R.P.No.376 of 2024
                                       in
                             R.S.A.No.158 of 2005
                   ================================
                      Dated this the 28th day of May, 2024

                                    ORDER

This is a petition filed by the appellant in R.S.A.No.158/2005

to review the judgment dated 16.01.2024 in the above Regular

Second Appeal.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner.

3. Though the learned counsel for the review petitioner

attempted to point out error apparent on the face of the judgment

warranting review, in fact, the learned counsel failed to substantiate

any error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of

the judgment.

in

Therefore, the Review Petition is found to be devoid of any

merits and is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

(A. BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE) rtr/