IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2011 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1933 RP.No. 263 of 2011() ------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN CMA.1943/2010 IN MACA.1554/2010 OF HONOURABLE COURT .................... PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS -------------------------------- 1. BINSY JOSEPH, AGED 26 YEARS, W/O.DECEASED JOSEPH PHILIP, KANIYAMTHARA KOVOOR HOUSE, P.O.PULLIPADAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. JOB JOSEPH, AGED 1 1/2 YEARS, KANIYAMTHARA KOVOOR HOUSE, P.O.PULLIPADAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, (MINOR REP. BY MOTHER GUARDIAN BINCY JOSEPH) (SON OF DECEASED). 3. KUNJUJIMMA, AGED 54 YEARS, KANIYAMTHARA KOVOOR HOUSE, P.O.PULLIPADAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SMT.SADHANA KUMARI ESWARI SRI.N.AJITH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------- 1. THIRU M.ELANKO, S/O.MARUDAMUTHU, 1/22-B, NORTH STREET, MADURAPURI P.O., THURAYOOR DISTRICT. 2. C.THANKA RAJU, S/O.CHIDAMBARAM,1/137 SIVAN KOIL STREET, NAKKA SELAM, PERUMBALLOOR DISTRICT. 3. THE MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., 163-MADANA GOPALAPURAM, PERUMBALLUR. 4. PHILIPHOSE, AGED 60 YEARS, KANIYAMTHARA KOVOOR HOUSE, P.O.PULLIPADAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------- Review Petition No. 263 of 2011 --------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of April, 2011 JUDJMENT A.K. Basheer, J. This review petition has been filed with a delay of 42 days. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the delay is condoned. 2. The only ground raised in the review petition is that the counsel referred to in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay of 631 days in filing the appeal, is none other than the counsel who had preferred the appeal. This Review Petition is also being filed through the same learned counsel. According to the learned counsel, this fact was omitted to be mentioned in the affidavit due to an oversight. 3. We are afraid the non-mentioning of the name of the counsel was not the only reason why we had dismissed the delay petition. Of course this was also one of the reasons mentioned in the order. We had considered the entire aspects of the matter while dismissing the delay petition. 4. In this context we may also mention that in the affidavit, Review Petition No. 263 of 2011 2 it was averred by the deponent that the misplaced case bundle was traced out some time in April 2010. But the appeal was filed only in February 2011. There was absolutely not even a whisper about the delay of more than nine months even after tracing out the case bundle. 5. In any view of the matter there is no error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the order. Therefore, the review petition is dismissed. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE. P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE. rkc