ATHULYA CRICKET CLUB Vs. IDUKKI DISTRICT CRICKET ASSOCIATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FIRST respondent in O.P(C).No.1099 of 2010 seeks review of judgment dated December 10, 2010 in the said case on the ground set forth in the petition for review. In short, grievance of petitioner is that this Court disposed of the writ petition without notice to and hearing of petitioner and that under cover of the judgment of this Court contesting respondents are prolonging the matter pending before the learned District Judge. According to the learned counsel, maintainability of I.A.No.432 of 2008 filed by the first respondent (in this review petition) has to be heard and decided first. Learned counsel submitted that the said application has been filed by an unregistered body which has no locus standi to file such an application and is not maintainable. I have heard learned counsel for first respondent also.

(2.) EXT.P1 in O.P(C).No.1099 of 2010 was under challenge in that proceeding at the instance of the first respondent. It is true that this Court disposed of the writ petition when it came up for admission. This Court found that challenge to EXT.P1, order in the writ petition could not be entertained in view of the judgment/order passed by this Court in W.P(C). No.20851 of 2008 and R.P.No.877 of 2008 and this Court directed that I.A.No.432 of 2008 requires to be disposed of as early as possible. That observation was made in the light of the order passed by learned Judge of this Court on August 19, 2009 in R.P.No.877 of 2008 in W.P(C).No.20851 of 2008. There, it was directed that the learned District Judge has to dispose of I.A.No.432 of 2008 but it was made clear that the said direction did not affect consideration of an application preferred under Order VI Rule 17 or Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This Court while disposing of O.P(C).No.1099 of 2010 did not go into any of the contentious issues and only directed that I.A.No.432 of 2008 has to be disposed of in the light of the judgment in W.P(C).No.20851 of 2008 and order in R.P.No.877 of 2008. I am unable to understand how the judgment in O.P(C). No.1099 of 2010 affected any right of petitioner herein to seek a review.