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. 268 of 2011 --------------------------- [FROM THE JUDGMENT DATED 02/11/2010 IN MAT. APPEAL NO.779/2009] ........... REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- P. SUNITHA, D/O. PADMA, AGED 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT` `SAGARIKA', PNR A 46, DR. PAI LANE, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN, SMT. P.G. BABITHA. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------------------------- K.V. JAYARAJ, S/O. K.M. VIJAYAN, AGED 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT `SAGARIKA', PNR A 46, DR. PAI LANE, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 002. BY THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- R.P.No.268/2011 in Mat.Appeal No.779/2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st March, 2011 ORDER Basant, J. The petitioner was the appellant in Mat.Appeal No.779/2009. When the appeal came up for hearing on 2.11.2010, it was submitted that it is agreed that the appeal can be dismissed with the observation that the appellant shall not be evicted from the residential building till 31.3.2011. To enable the appellant to take advantage of this concession, it was directed that the appellant shall file an affidavit of unconditional undertaking before the Execution Court within a period of one month that she shall surrender vacant possession without demand on 31.3.2011, at the latest. It is submitted that such an affidavit has been filed, though belatedly. 2. The petitioner has now come to this Court with this petition to condone the delay of 113 days in filing the review petition and to review the judgment dated 2.11.2010. In the meantime, it is submitted that the R.P.No.268/2011 2 appellant had gone to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has dismissed the Special Leave Petition by Annexure-A order on 5.1.2011. It is at this juncture that the petitioner has again come to this Court with this petition to condone the delay and entertain the review petition. 3. We find no error apparent on the face of the record warranting or justifying the invocation of powers of review. Further, we do not find any valid reasons to condone the long delay of 113 days. It appears to us that this petition has been filed on 25.3.2011 obviously to avoid the obligation to surrender the possession on 31.3.2011. We are not persuaded to condone the delay or to entertain the review petition. This petition for condonation of delay and the review petition are in these circumstances dismissed. R.BASANT JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/