IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 20TH MAY 2010 / 30TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 7579 of 2010(O) ------------------------- LAR.267/1982 of I ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- MARIAM, W/O. KORA, PUTHETH HOUSE, KEERAMPARA, KOTHAMANGALAM, REP. BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, PAULOSE @ THANKACHAN, AGED 55 YEARS, PUTHETH HOUSE, KEERAMPARA, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.P.MOHAMMED NIYAZ SRI.K.RONALD JOSE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SHRI P.R.JAYAKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.7579 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of May, 2010. JUDGMENT Government Pleader takes notice for the respondent. 2. Petitioner/decree holder in E.P.No.420 of 2005 in L.A.R.No.267 of 1982 of the court of learned Additional Sub Judge-I, Ernakulam is aggrieved by Ext.P8, order on E.A.No.94 of 2009 closing the execution petition observing that EP amount of Rs.20,40,923/- is deposited by the garnishee and accordingly, recording full satisfaction. According to the petitioner, she was entitled to get interest for the entire amount in the light of the judgment of this Court dated 12.08.2008 in W.P.(C) No.22864 of 2008. In view of that decision, petitioner filed Ext.P5, application for review of Ext.P3, order fixing the liability of respondent and Ext.P6, application for condonation of delay of 615 days in filing Ext.P5, review petition. Learned Additional Sub Judge passed Ext.P7, order on the application for condonation of delay of 615 days in filing the review petition (E.A.No.94 of 2009) and disposed of E.A.No.94 of 2009 by Ext.P8, order which I have extracted above. Petitioner is aggrieved by Exts.P7 and P8, orders. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that as power of attorney holder of WP(C) No.7579/2010 2 petitioner was away at Bombay and returned only in 2009 petitioner could not file the review petition on time. It is submitted by learned counsel that State had not even filed objection to E.A.No.93 of 2009 (for condonation of delay). 3. I have gone through Ext.P6, application for condonation of delay and Ext.P7, order thereon. According to the petitioner, her power of attorney holder had been to Bombay in search of job and returned only in 2009 and hence, could not file the petition for review on time. True, she has not adduced any evidence in that line. But there is no reason to think that the delay has been willfully caused. If the petitioner stood to benefit by the review she has sought for, there is no reason to think that she would willfully delay filing of the petitions. This is a case the property belonging to the petitioner was acquired 25 years back. Having heard learned counsel for petitioner and Government Pleader and gone through the affidavit in support of Ext.P6, application I am satisfied that the delay has been explained. Resultantly, this Writ Petition is allowed in the following lines: i. Exts.P7 and P8, orders are set aside. II. Ext.P6, application for condonation of delay will stand allowed. WP(C) No.7579/2010 3 iii. Ext.P5, application (E.A.No.94 of 2009) for review is remitted to the court of learned Additional Sub Judge-I, Ernakulam for fresh consideration as provided under law. iv. Parties shall appear in the court below on 15.06.2010. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks