IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 29TH MAGHA 1931 RP.No. 843 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN AS.581/2001 Dated 03/12/2004 REVIEW PETITIONERS: RESPONDENT NOS 2 & 3 1. M.P.SREEKANTAN NAIR, S/O.VELAYUDHAN NAMBIAR, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. JAYALAKSHMI S.NAIR, W/O.SREEKANTAN NAIR, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE SRI.M.M.ANTO RESPONDENTS: APPELLANT & RESPONDENT NO.1, 4 & 5 1. M/S.NATIONAL FIRE ARMOUR, 41-A, KUTTY STREET, NEW STERLING ROAD, BUS STOP, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI - 600 034, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, A.S.MENON. 2. M/S.MALABAR FUEL CORPORATION, TALIPARAMBA P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. K.KARUNAKARAN, FORMER PARTNER OF MALABAR FUEL CORPORATION, VELLUR AMSOM, DESOM, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. BIJESH, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN K., FORMER PARTNER OF MALABAR FUEL CORPORATION, VELLUR AMSOM, DESOM, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. M/S. PEEYUS.A. KOTTAM & V. RAJAGOPAL. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN, Ag. C.J. & M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.M. APPLN. 1480/2008 & R.P. 843/2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010 O R D E R Raman, Ag. CJ. Registry has noted that the Review Petition is defective for not taking steps for service both in the R.P. as well as in the C.M. Application. However, learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that the defect is cured today. 2. Heard. This petition is seeking review of the judgment in A.S. 581/2001 rendered as early as on 3.12.2004. There is an inordinate delay in filing the review petition and the reasons stated in the delay condonation application are not sufficient to condone the delay. Apart from that, it is also brought to our notice that pursuant to the judgment in A.S. 581/2001, the suit has already been decreed. In such circumstances, the review petition itself has become infructuous. Accordingly, both the petition for condoning the delay as also the review petition are dismissed. P.R. RAMAN, Ag. CHIEF JUSTICE M.N. KRISHNAN, knc/- JUDGE.