IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2011 / 21ST ASWINA 1933 RP.No. 638 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN RSA.973/2007 Dated 09/07/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. OUSEPH KOCHAPPU,PUTHUSSERI @ THARIAKU, PIRARUR KAR, MANICKAMANGALAM (NOW MATTOOR VILLAGE, ALUVA). 2. OUSEPH ANTHONI,PUTHUSSERI @ THARIAKU, PIRARUR KARA, MANICKAMANGALAM (NOW MATTOOR VILLAGE, ALUVA). 3. AMMINNI,D/O.OUSEPH, PUTHUSSERI @ THARIAKU, PIRARUR KAR, MANICKAMANGALAM (NOW MATTOOR VILLAGE, ALUVA). 4. ELIAMMA,D/O.OUSEPH, PUTHUSSERI @ THARIAKU, PIRARUR KAR, MANICKAMANGALAM (NOW MATTOOR VILLAGE, ALUVA). BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.K.A.BALAN SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SRI.S.A.ANAND RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. OUSEPH VARKEY,PUTHUSSERI @ THARIAKU, PIRARUR KARA,MANICKAMANGALAM (NOW MATTOOR VILLAGE, ALUVA 684 346. 2. THRESSIA,W/O.POULOSE KALLUKKARAN, KIDANGOOR KARA, ANGAMALY VILLAGE 684 168. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.M.Appln.847 of 2011& R.P.No.638 of 2011 in RSA No.973 of 2007-G - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13 day of October, 2011 O R D E R C.M.Appln.847 of 2011 is a petition to condone the delay of one year and one month (396 days) in filing the review petition. 2. The affidavit in support of the application is sworn to by the fourth applicant herein, who is the fourth petitioner in the review petition. The petitioners seek to have the judgment dated 09.07.2010 in R.S.A 973 of 2007 reviewed. Earlier, the first respondent herein had moved R.P.838 of 2010, which was disposed of on 28.10.2010. It is averred in the affidavit that the fourth applicant was entrusted by the other applicants to conduct the case. But due to an inadvertent omission on the part of the fourth applicant he could not engage a counsel to conduct the case. It is pointed out that when the 4th petitioner came to know about the judgment in the second appeal, she was laid :2: R.P.No.638/2011 in RSA No.973/2007-G up and was unable to move about due to Rheumatic Arthritis. In support of her case she produced Annexure1. As soon as she recovered from the illness, she made arrangement to have the review petition filed. It is pointed out that unless the review is allowed and the matter is re- heard, it will cause irreparable loss and injury to the applicants. On the basis of these contentions it is prayed that the delay be condoned. 3. Notice was issued on the delay petition and the 1st respondent has appeared in person. 4. It is noticed that there were as many as 5 respondents in the RSA before this Court. Since the appellant had appeared in person, this Court felt that sufficient assistance could not be received from the party in person, an Amicus curie was appointed. The Amicus Curie was heard in length and after hearing the submissions of the Amicus Curie , this Court passed a preliminary decree. 5. The suit was for partition relating to 5 cents of :3: R.P.No.638/2011 in RSA No.973/2007-G property. There were earlier rounds of litigation in which this Court has remanded the matter and this Court then found that the remand is needed in relation to only Item No.2 and the decision as regards item No.1 has become final. The learned Amicus curie appearing for the appellant also admitted the said fact. On that basis, the judgment was rendered in second appeal. 6. The present grievance of the review petitioners is that the earlier remand order related to both item 1 and 2 and this Court was not justified in holding that as far as item No.1 was concerned, there was no order of remand. 7. On going through the records this Court had come to the definite conclusion that the earlier remand order did not relate to item No.1. It is true that in the concluding portion of the earlier remand order it was stated that the court below had considered the matter afresh. But a reading of the judgment as a whole, it is clear that remand is related the item No.2 only. The judgment clearly shows :4: R.P.No.638/2011 in RSA No.973/2007-G that this Court has confirmed the finding as regards item No.1. It is on that basis this Court while disposing of RSA 973/2007 was inclined to hold that the remand order did not relate to item No.1 but was confined to item No.2 and under these circumstances the courts below were not justified in entering the findings regarding item No.1. In view of the said facts, no purpose would be served by condoning the delay in filing the review petition as there is no merit in the review petition. Hence this delay petition is dismissed, so also the review petition. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE kkj