AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C. S. Dias, J
The review petition is filed assailing the judgment passed in the writ petition.
The review petitioner’s case is that she was the fourth respondent in the writ petition, which was filed by the first respondent to set aside Ext.P1 order. The writ petition itself was not maintainable in law, as the first respondent is an unregistered firm. This Court had allowed the writ petition by dispensing with the notice to the review petitioner. The review petitioner had strong and well sustaining contentions to be raised in the writ petition. However, since this Court had dispensed with the notice to the review petitioner, she was denied the opportunity to raise the contention. There is an error apparent on the face of the judgment, which warrants to be reviewed. Hence, the review petition.
Heard; Sri.R.Kishore, the learned counsel for the review petitioner and Sri.ESM Kabeer, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 2 to 4.
Indisputably, in paragraph 3 of the judgment, this Court had dispensed with notice to the review petitioner for the reason that this Court was only directing the third respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P2 application filed by the petitioner, to set aside the ex-parte order, that too after affording the first respondent and the review petitioner an opportunity of being heard. This, I hold is an error apparent on the face of record, which warrants to be reviewed.
Resultantly, the review petition is allowed, by recalling the judgment dated 10.7.2023 in W.P. (C)No.21726/23.