IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2008 / 22ND CHAITHRA 1930 RP.No. 447 of 2008(D) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.28180/1999 Dated 11/01/2007 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER (4TH RESPONDENT): ---------------------------------------------------- SR. TESSY P.J., AGED 54 YEARS, D/O. P.P. JOSEPH, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT, ST.MARY'S G.H.S., CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF SRI.A.MUHAMMED HASHIM RESPONDENTS: (PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 & ADDL.RSDT.5 & 6 ----------------------------------------------------------- ---- 1. JESSY THOMAS, UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, HOLY FAMILY BOYS HIGH SCHOOL, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. THE MANGER, HOLY FAMILY BOYS HIGH SCHOOL, CHERTHALA. 3. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHERTHALA. 4. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. RINCY ANTONY, LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, HOLY FAMILY BOYS HIGH SCHOOL, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA. 6. SAJO THOMAS, LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, HOLY FAMILY BOYS HIGH SCHOOL, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA. G.P. SHRI.T.T.MUHAMOOD THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== C.M.Appl.No.195/2008 & R.P.No.447/2008 in O.P.No.28180/1999 ================== Dated this the 11th day of April, 2008 O R D E R This review petition is filed by the 4th respondent in the original petition with a petition to condone delay of 418 days in filing the review petition. Admittedly the petitioner received notice in the original petition. The only ground raised in the application to condone delay is that she being a nun she was under the bonafide belief that the manager who was the 1st respondent in the original petition would be filing counter affidavit and contesting the matter and therefore, no separate counter affidavit was filed by her. I am not satisfied that this is a sufficient ground to condone delay in filing the review petition. I am also not convinced about the grounds raised in the review petition for reviewing the judgment. If at all, they have to be raised in an appeal against the judgment. Therefore, the C.M. Application and the review petition are dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 2