Kerala High Court
Muhammed Sherif @ Sherieff Puthan ... vs Abdul Akbar on 12 September, 2025
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
1
RP Nos.990 and 1022 of 2022
2025:KER:68221
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 21ST BHADRA, 1947
RP NO. 990 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.06.2022 IN FAO NO.46 OF 2021
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT:
MUHAMMED SHERIF @ SHERIEFF PUTHAN PEEDIKAKKAL
AGED 55 YEARS,S/O.LATE AHAMAD KABEER, PUTHAN
PEEDIKAKKAL HOUSE, KULUKKALLUR, MULAYANKAVU POST,
PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER ABDULLA SHAHID .P, AGED 21
YEARS, S/O. SHERIEFF PUTHAN PEEDIKAKKAL, PUTHAN
PEEDIKAKKAL HOUSE, KULUKKALLUR, MULAYANKAVU POST,
PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN - 679337
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.SREEHARI
SHRI.P.B.KRISHNAN (SR.)
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 ABDUL AKBAR,AGED 47 YEARS,S/O. LATE AHAMAD KABEER,
PUTHAN PEEDIKAKKAL VEETTIL, ERAVATHARA, MULAYANKAVU
POST, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN - 679337
2 ABDUL JABBAR,AGED 43 YEARS,S/O. LATE AHAMAD KABEER,
PUTHAN PEEDIKAKKAL VEETTIL, ERAVATHARA, MULAYANKAVU
POST, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN - 679337
2
RP Nos.990 and 1022 of 2022
2025:KER:68221
BY ADVS.
SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH,
SRI.J.RAMKUMAR
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.09.2025 along with RP 1022 of 2022, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
3
RP Nos.990 and 1022 of 2022
2025:KER:68221
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 21ST BHADRA, 1947
RP NO. 1022 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.06.2022 IN OP(C) NO.1125 OF
2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
MUHAMMED SHERIF @ SHERIEFF PUTHAN PEEDIKAKKAL
AGED 55 YEARS,S/O.LATE AHAMAD KABEER, PUTHAN
PEEDIKAKKAL HOUSE, KULUKKALLUR, MULAYANKAVU POST,
PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER ABDULLA SHAHID .P, AGED 21
YEARS, S/O. SHERIEFF PUTHAN PEEDIKAKKAL, PUTHAN
PEEDIKAKKAL HOUSE, KULUKKALLUR, MULAYANKAVU POST,
PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN - 679337
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.SREEHARI
SHRI.P.B.KRISHNAN (SR.)
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 ABDUL AKBAR
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O. LATE AHAMAD KABEER, PUTHAN PEEDIKAKKAL VEETTIL,
ERAVATHARA, MULAYANKAVU POST, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT., PIN - 679337
2 ABDUL JABBAR
AGED 43 YEARS
4
RP Nos.990 and 1022 of 2022
2025:KER:68221
S/O. LATE AHAMAD KABEER, PUTHAN PEEDIKAKKAL VEETTIL,
ERAVATHARA, MULAYANKAVU POST, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT., PIN - 679337
BY ADV SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH
SRI.J.RAMKUMAR
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.09.2025 ALONG WITH RP NO.990 OF 2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
5
RP Nos.990 and 1022 of 2022
2025:KER:68221
COMMON ORDER
Muralee Krishna, J.
R.P. No.990 of 2022 is filed by the appellant in F.A.O. No.46
of 2021, and R.P.No.1022 of 2022 is filed by the petitioner in
O.P.(C) No.1125 of 2021, under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with
Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking review
of the common judgment dated 24.06.2022 passed by this Court.
2. F.A.O. No.46 of 2021 was filed by the petitioner, who is
the plaintiff in O.S.No.106 of 2020, on the files of the Sub Court,
Ottapalam, challenging the dismissal order dated 06.02.2021
passed by the learned Subordinate Judge in IA No.6 of 2020 filed
by the petitioner seeking appointment of a receiver. O.P.(C)
No.1125 of 2021 is also filed by the petitioner against the
dismissal order dated 06.02.2021 passed by the learned
Subordinate Judge in I.A. No.7 of 2020 filed by the petitioner,
seeking a direction against the head of the institutions 4 to 6
contained in the plaint 'B' schedule property, to preserve the share
due to the petitioner to which an objection was raised by the
respondents.
RP Nos.990 and 1022 of 2022
2025:KER:68221
3. By the common judgment dated 24.06.2022, this Court
dismissed the appeal and the original petition. Contending that
this Court erred in not considering relevant material evidence
available on record, especially the documents marked as Exts.A1
and A2 before the court below and also the admissions made by
the respondents regarding the execution of those documents, the
petitioner filed the instant review petitions, with the delay
condonation applications.
4. On 21.11.2022, when these matters came up for
consideration, this Court issued consolidated notices to the
respondents returnable within four weeks. A copy of the
memorandum of review petitions was directed to be enclosed
along with the notice sent to the respondents.
5. Thereafter, the review petitions along with the delay
condonation applications were listed before the Bench only today
with an explanation from the section concerned that since neither
party took any steps to post the case before the Bench during the
period, the case did not come to the notice of the officer who was
assigned the charge of the concerned seat and it was due to the
RP Nos.990 and 1022 of 2022
2025:KER:68221
inadvertent omission the delay condonation applications were
omitted to be posted before the Bench, though service of notice
to the respondents was complete.
6. Today, by a separate order, we allowed the delay
condonation applications. However, the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not pressing the
review petitions.
In view of the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel
for the petitioner, the review petitions stand dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
sks
