IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1931 RP.No. 45 of 2010() ------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN RSA.771/2003 Dated 29/07/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER: 2ND APPELLANT ----------------------------------- MILDRIT FERNANDEZ, W/O.CLAUDY FERNANDEZ, C.C.NO.18/2420, PALLURUTHY NORTH MURI, KOCHI-5 (WRONGLY TYPED AS MILDRES FERNANDEZ). BY ADV. SRI.S.VINOD BHAT RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. TREESA ROCKY, W/O.ROCKY, RETIRED TEACHER, RESIDING AT 55, VIVEKANANDA SOCIETY, MARKAPURZ ROAD, BARODA, GUJARATH. 2. K.J.VALSAMMA, D/O.JOSEPH, ALUVAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KADEBHAGAM, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI-6. 3. JAMES, ALUVAPARAMBIL, KADEBHAGAM, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI-6. 4. CICILY XAVIER, W/O.XAVIER, PUNNAKKATTUSSERY, PALLURUTHY NORTH MURI, RAMESWARAM VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK. 5. RUDY OLIVERO, S/O.JOSEPH OLIVERO, C.C.018/2392, MAROTTIPARAMBU, PALLURUTHY NORTH MURI, RAMESWARAM VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK. 6. SEBASTIAN LIVERO @ SANNO, S/O.SEBASTINE LIVERO, VELIPARAMBIL VEETTIL, RAMESWARAM VILLAGE, KOCHI-5. RP 45/2010 2 7. GEORGE ANTONY, S/O.ANTONY, PUTHENPARAMBIL, NEAR POLAKKANDAM MARKET, THOPPUMPADY VILLAGE, KOCHI-5. 8. THOMSON, S/O.THOMAS, KANAPPILLY HOUSE, PALLURUTHY NORTH MURI, S.D.P.Y.ROAD, AMESWARAM VILLAGE, KOCHI-6. 9. JULIE, AGED 38 YEARS, W/O.DIANOSIAN, ASSISI ROAD, ALUVA (PRESENT ADDRESS). 10. SEBASTIAN, S/O.ANTONY, KADAMBUKKAT HOUSE, P.O.ROAD, THOPPUMPADY, KOCHI-5. 11. SAJAN, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.VARGHESE, MAZHUVANCHERRY HOUSE, C.C.NO. 18/2234, KONOTH PARAMBU, PALLURUTHY NORTH MURI, KOCHI-5. BY ADV. SRI. V.L. SHENOY. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVINGCOME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN Ag. C.J. & P. BHAVADASAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = C.M. APPLN. 35/2010 AND R.P. NO. 45 OF 2010 IN R.S.A. 771 OF 2003 = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010. O R D E R Raman, Ag. CJ. This Application is filed seeking condonation of the delay of 140 days caused in filing the review petition. We have heard both sides. The review petition itself is filed pointing out an error apparent on the face of the record, in that this Court, while disposing of the appeal, took in to consideration of an injunction order against alienation and the copy of the injunction application and the order thereon was produced to show that though the prayer was widely couched the court below actually granted injunction as against induction of third party. It is true that the petitioner has approached the higher court and probably on advice, the records were returned by the counsel. That shows that there is no laches on the part of the petitioner in prosecuting the matter. However, as rightly pointed out by the counsel for the respondent, the statement that at the time of hearing, the case was not properly represented before this Court, is CM APPLN. 35/2010 2 certainly wrong. But regarding the nature of the injunction order there is no argument and the court proceeded that there was an injunction against alienation. It could have been pointed out then and there that the injunction order is not against alienation which was not done. In the circumstances, we feel that in the interest of justice delay should be condoned and review allowed for re-hearing. Accordingly, C.M. Application 35/2010 & R.P. 45/2010 are allowed. The appeal is re-posted for hearing. The application is allowed. P.R. RAMAN, Ag. CHIEF JUSTICE P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. KNC/-