IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2011 / 6TH SRAVANA 1933 RP.No. 522 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN SA.1022/2001 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT ------------------------------- JAYALEKSHMI, W/O. KONGOTH NARAYANAN, VILAVATTOM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP M.VARUGHESE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. NARAYANI AMMA, D/O. KONGOTTU LEKSHMIKUTTY AMMA, VILAVATTOM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 2. KARUNAKARAN, S/O. KONGOTH NARAYANI AMMA, VILAVATTOM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 3. CHANDRAN, S/O. KONGOTH NARAYANI AMMA, VILAVATTOM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 4. KALEESAN, S/O. KONGOTH NARAYANI AMMA, VILAVATTOM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 5. VISALAKSHY, D/O. KONGOTH NARAYANI AMMA, VILAVATTOM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 6. PRABHAKARAN, S/O. KONGOTH NARAYANI AMMA, VILAVATTOM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 7. POOMATHI, S/O. KONGOTH NARAYANI AMMA, VILAVATTOM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 8. NARAYANAN, S/O. KONGOTH KAMBOLATHIL BHARATHY AMMA, VILAVATTOM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 9. PADMINI DEVI, W/O. POTTONATH PADMANABHAN NAIR, THAIKATTUSSERI, OLLUR, THRISSUR. R1 TO R9 BY ADV. SRI P.VIJAYABHANU THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CM APPLN.672 OF 2011 & R.P.No.522 of 2011 IN S.A.1022 OF 2001-E - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of July , 2011 O R D E R This is a petition to condone the delay of 298days in filing review petition. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition it is stated that the appeal was heard and disposed on 11.08.2010. In the affidavit, It is pointed out that the matter was heard exparte. According to the affidavit, the clerk had omitted to note the case in the cause list and there was omission in that regard. 2. On going through the judgment in the appeal, it is found that there is absolutely no merit in the claim put forward by the appellant. This court had while disposing of the appeal specifically considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. The claim put forward by the appellant that it was without hearing the 2 R.P.No.522 of 2011 counsel is devoid of any bona fide and is incorrect. It is found that submissions are contrary to the facts and totally false. This petition is accordingly dismissed and so also the review petition. P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE kkj