IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1932 RP.No. 89 of 2010(B) ------------------- (JUDGMENT DT.12.11.2009 IN MAT.APPEAL NO.785/09) REVIEW PETITIONERS : APPELLANTS -------------------------------- 1. P.K.THOMASKUTTY, S/O. KOSHY, AGED AROUND 50 YEARS, PULLAMJIKALAYIL MEENKULAM, CHANNAPETTA, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. 2. MARIYAMMA KOZHY, W/O. KOSHY, AGE AROUND 80 YEARS, MEENKULAM, CHANNAPETTA, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.G.BHAGAVAT SINGH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. VALSALA THOMASKUTTY, W/O.THOMASKUTTY AGED 47 YEARS, VLSALA VILASAM, ELLICODE.P.O., ELAMPAL MURI, VILAKKUDY VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. 2. ALAN THOMAS, S/O. THOMASKUTTY, AGED 18 YEARS, RESIDING AT VALSALA VILASOM, DO-DO- THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- C.M. Appl. No.224 of 2010 & R.P.No.89 of 2010 in Mat.A. No.785 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of March, 2010 ORDER Basant,J. This petition is to condone the delay of 37 days in filing a review petition. The review petition, in turn, is directed against an order dismissing an application to condone the delay of 390 days in filing a Mat. Appeal. This Court, in the order sought to be reviewed, held that there was no sufficient reason to condone the delay. Before dismissing the said application, this Court looked into the facts to satisfy itself that the dismissal of the application for condonation of long delay of 390 days does not result in any failure or miscarriage of justice. 2. We have heard the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. We are not satisfied that there is any justifiable C.M. Appl. No.224 of 2010 & R.P.No.89 of 2010 in Mat.A. No.785 of 2009 -: 2 :- reasons to condone the delay of 37 days in filing the review petition. 3. We have considered the contentions raised in the review petition again to satisfy us that the dismissal of the application for condonation of delay does not result in miscarriage of justice. 4. We need only mention that we are not satisfied that the impugned order suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record justifying the invocation of the powers in review. 5. This petition is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the review petition shall stand dismissed as barred by limitation. R. BASANT (Judge) M.C. HARI RANI (Judge) Nan/