Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DR.JANARDHANAN D.A.M versus SUHARA.P, AGED 32 YEARS

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


DR.JANARDHANAN D.A.M v. SUHARA.P, AGED 32 YEARS - RP No. 28 of 2007(G) [2007] RD-KL 1883 (24 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RP No. 28 of 2007(G)

1. DR.JANARDHANAN D.A.M,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. SUHARA.P, AGED 32 YEARS,
... Respondent

2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,

3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

5. MANGALODAYAM VAIDYASALA,

6. THE DRUGS CONTROLLER (AYURVEDIC),

For Petitioner :SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR

For Respondent :SRI.M,.SASINDRAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.R.UDAYABHANU

Dated :24/01/2007

O R D E R

K.R. UDAYABHANU, J


============================
Rev.P. NO. 28 OF 2007 in W.P.(C). No. 19596/2005
============================

Dated this the 24th day of January 2007

O R D E R

The Review Petitioner, who is the 4th respondent in W.P.(C) No. 19596, has sought for getting the judgment dated 30.10.2006 reviewed on the ground that he was not heard. It is submitted that the name of the counsel was not listed in the cause list. It is mentioned in the note of the office that the vakalath of R4 i.e., the petitioner is not seen entered in the computer entries. The petitioner has produced the copy of the vakalath wherefrom it can be seen that the vakalath was returned as incomplete and with direction to return within 15 days after curing the defects. It appears that the vakalath was not re-presented. The contention of the counsel is that there is no defect at all in the vakalath. All the same, it would not be possible to verify the same objectively as the vakkalath is produced directly right now although the Rev.P. NO. 28 OF 2007 representation of the counsel need not be disbelieved. All the same, the vakalath returned ought to have been re-presented in time on 15.12.2005 or fact of mistake in the office note ought to have been brought to the notice of the concerned Officer or of this Court, earlier. I find that the Judgment in Writ Petition No. 19596/2005 is a considered one, after hearing the counsel for the petitioner, Counsel for R5 and the Government Pleader. Hence I find no reason to review the order which is to the effect that the police shall investigate the matter.

K.R. UDAYABHANU, JUDGE.

RV Rev.P. NO. 28 OF 2007


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.