IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2011 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1933 RP.No. 257 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN MA.25/2005 Dated 21/12/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT -------------------------------- JAYASREE,D/O.KARUNAKARAN NAIR,SASTHU BHAVAN,PAPPANAMCODE JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.J.JOY RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT ------------------------ JAYACHANDRAN NAIR,S/O.VELUPILLAI, KAMALA SADANAM,PARASUWAKKAL,PARASSALA, NEYYATTINKARA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVE COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2011 ALONG WITH RP.NO.262/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ........................................... C.M.Appln.Nos.727 & 728 of 2011 & R.P.NOs.257 & 262 OF 2011 in Mat. A.Nos.5 & 25 of 2005 ............................................. Dated this the 31st day of March, 2011. O R D E R Basant, J. The review petitioner and her former husband had certain disputes between them. They were before this Court in Mat.A.Nos.5/2005 and 25/2005. Both those appeals were preferred by the former husband of the review petitioner. 2. When the matter came up for hearing, parties settled their disputes. The terms were specified by both. The terms were incorporated in the separate judgments passed. Counsel perused the draft judgments and confirmed that the extraction of the terms of settlement in the judgments in the two cases are correct. Accordingly after specific approval of the counsel, this Court proceeded to pass judgments in the two appeals as agreed by both counsel and parties. R.P.NOs.257 & 262 OF 2011 : 2 : 3.The review petitioner herein, who had remarried after the divorce of the earlier marriage, had agreed to the stipulations regarding custody of the minor child aged about 17 years. She further agreed that she shall execute a settlement deed in favour of her son Sasthu. Accordingly, separate judgments were passed in the two Mat.Appeals on 21.12.2010. 4. Review petitioner has now come up before this Court with these petitions to condone the delay of 44 days and 59 days in filing these review petitions and to review the judgment rendered in these cases on 21.12.2010. 5. The learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that the delay occurred on account of reasons beyond the control of the review petitioner. The review petitioner further submits that the property which is ordered to be settled in favour of her son is the only property belonging to her and she has now remarried. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent i.e. the appellant in the appeals contends that there is no semblance of bonafides in the prayer for condonation of R.P.NOs.257 & 262 OF 2011 : 3 : delay and to review the judgment rendered in the two Mat. Appeals. With open eyes after prolonged discussion, it was agreed that the property can be settled by the review petitioner in favour of her son and that stipulations regarding custody can be accepted. There was a further stipulation that, if necessary, the terms and conditions regarding custody can be modified. No joint compromise application was filed. Parties and counsel agreed and stipulated the terms of agreement. They were incorporated in the judgment. A draft was given to the counsel to confirm and it is thereafter that the counsel and the parties confirmed the draft and this Court proceeded to pass the impugned judgments. The learned counsel for the respondent in this situation contends that the delay is not liable to be condoned and the review petitions are not liable to be allowed. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent contends that these review petitions are evidently not filed by the review petitioner on her own. She is prevailed up by others to file such an application, submits the learned counsel for R.P.NOs.257 & 262 OF 2011 : 4 : the respondent. 8. We have considered all the relevant circumstances. We are not persuaded to agree that the delay deserves to be condoned. We are not further persuaded to agree that there is any error apparent on the face of the record which can persuade us to review the judgments already rendered. The petitions for condonation of delay and the review petitions are in these circumstances dismissed. R. BASANT, JUDGE. K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE. cl