AMMUKUTTY Vs. V.P.ANILKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the writ petitioner. RP No.866/2017 is filed in the writ petition by a third party, who is the first respondent herein, and it is challenging the order in the review petition, this appeal is filed.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the first respondent and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 5.

(3.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant filed writ petition complaining of delay on the part of the authorities in considering her application under the Transfer of Registry Rules. The writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 7.2.2017 directing that a decision be taken on the application after affording the parties an opportunity of hearing. It appears that in pursuance thereof, the application was allowed and mutation was effected. It was thereafter that a review petition was filed by the first respondent herein, who was not a party to the writ petition, relying on Annexure-A8, a judgment and decree passed by the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvalla in OS Nos.172/2009 and 454/2009, the former of which was filed by the first respondent against his vendor's vendor and the latter by that vendor's vendor against the first respondent and others. In the review petition, the learned single Judge passed the impugned order clarifying that the order passed in the application for mutation in compliance with the judgment of this Court, would be subject to Annexure-A8 judgment of the Munsiff's Court. It is this order which is impugned before us.