IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2008 / 27TH SRAVANA 1930 RP.No. 1000 of 2007(F) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.16440/2005 Dated 23/06/2005 .................... PETITIONER/2ND RESPONDENT --------------- MATHEW THOMAS, S/O.V.T.MATHEW, VADAKKEKKARA, KOZHABA DESOM, PEECHI VILLAGE, TRISSUR TALUK NOW RESIDING AT DEIRA LOROSA BUILDING 205, DUBAI. BY ADV. SRI.K.J.GEORGE KUNNUMPURATH SRI.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY) RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER & IST RESPONDENT ----------------- 1. SHEEJA, D/O.VARGHESE, AGED 32 YEARS, INJODI NEAR CHRIST CHURCH COLLEGE, IRINJALAKUDA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, (NOW RESIDING AT AL-GUISAIS, ROCKY ROAD, ESTATEMENT BUILDINGS FLAT NO.118 DUBAI) 2. V.T.MATHEW, VADAKKEKARA, KOZHAMBA DESOM, PEECHI VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- R.P.No.1000 of 2007 AND C.M.Appln.439 of 2007 ------------------------------- Dated this the 18th August, 2008. O R D E R This review petition is filed with a petition to condone the delay of 811 days in filing the review petition. Review petition is filed to review the judgment dated, 23.6.2005, in W.P.(C) No.16440 of 2005. Petitioner is the second respondent therein. First respondent is his father. Review petition, along with a petition to condone the delay, was filed on 10.10.2007. The delay was sought to be explained by the petitioner contending that notice in the writ petition was not served on him, and when he came to India in the last week of September, 2007, for vacation, he made enquiries regarding the case and came to know that case before Family Court has become infructuous due to the judgment of this Court in the writ petition. He engaged a counsel to enquire the result, and counsel filed copy application on 6.10.2007, and obtained the certified copy on 10.10.2007. Only on going through the judgment, he R.P.No.1000 of 2007 & C.M.Appln.No.439 of 2007 2 understood that decision was on the basis of wrong statement of the petitioner in the writ petition, and, therefore, delay in filing the petition was not wilful and as he was in Dubai, and it is to be condoned. 2. Petition is opposed by the respondents contending that petitioner challenged the order before the Supreme Court in S.L.P.No.14011 of 2005, which was dismissed on 1.8.2005, and petitioner himself through his father as power of attorney holder filed a suit before Family Court, wherein, he has stated that the judgment in the writ petition was challenged before the Supreme court, and, therefore, the inordinate delay cannot be condoned. 3. On hearing the learned counsel, I do not find any reason to condone the inordinate delay in filing the petition for review. O.S.No.843 of 2005 was filed by the petitioner himself, through his father, the power of attorney, wherein petitioner has specifically contended that the order of this Court is challenged before the Apex Court. Though Special Leave R.P.No.1000 of 2007 & C.M.Appln.No.439 of 2007 3 Petition was filed before the Apex Court by the father of the petitioner, it is admitted case that father is the power of attorney holder of the petitioner. Special Leave Petition was dismissed on 1.8.2005. Still the review petition is filed only in October, 2007. There is no reason to condone the inordinate delay. In such circumstances, petition to condone the delay is dismissed. Consequently, the review petition is also dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.