Case Summary
The case involves a review petition filed by S Abdul Razzak against C B Suraja Devi and V P Omkumar regarding the validity of a commission report related to property measurements. The court dismissed the review petition, stating there were no errors apparent on the face of the record.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Review Petition
Final Judgment
No
The review petition was dismissed by the court as there were no apparent mistakes in the previous judgment. The court emphasized that the review process does not allow for a rehearing of the entire matter.
Key Reasoning:
The court found no apparent errors in the previous order that warranted a review.
The court found no apparent errors in the previous order that warranted a review.
Why Defendant Won:
The court found no apparent errors in the previous order that warranted a review.
The court found no apparent errors in the previous order that warranted a review.
Supporting Evidence
There is no error apparent on the face of record to review the order in IA 1/2024.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, review petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- S Abdul Razzak
- Party Age
- 74
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- C B Suraja Devi
- Party Age
- 62
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- V P Omkumar
- Party Age
- 71
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- M P Ramnath
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Bepin Paul
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sandhya S
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Shalu Varghese
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- P Rajesh Kottakkal
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Varghese Varghese
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Antony Tharian
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Deepak S
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- G Rajagopal
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Rejected
Description:
The review petition sought to set aside the previous order regarding the commission report.
Evidence:
Therefore, this Court finds that there is no error apparent on the face of record to review the order in IA 1/2024.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
These documents were part of the review petition, concerning the commission's findings related to property measurements.
Reference:
Exts C4 and C4(a)
Document Type:
Title deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was referenced as the basis for measuring properties in the context of the review petition.
Reference:
Ext A1
Document Type:
Title deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was also referenced as part of the basis for measuring properties in the review petition.
Reference:
Ext A3
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
These documents were initially filed and formed part of the history of the proceedings leading up to the review.
Reference:
Exts C3 and C3(a)
Case Classification
Case Type
Review Petition
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between S Abdul Razzak vs C B Suraja Devi et al regarding Review of commission report
Case Code Year
Case between S Abdul Razzak vs C B Suraja Devi et al regarding Review of commission report