IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2011 / 8TH MAGHA 1932 RP.No. 1172 of 2010() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN SA.699/1996 .................... AS 6/1991 OF SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA OS 149/1987 OF MUNSIFF COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA ...... PETITIONER IN R.P. - ADDL. RESPONDENT NO.S IN S.A. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- D. NARAYANAN NAMBOODIRI, KOTTAKKAL MANA, VARAPPETTY, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERENAKULAM DISTRICT. BY SRI. S.V. BALAKRISHNA IYER, SENIOR ADVOCATE, BY ADVS. SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN, SMT.GEETHA P.MENON. RESPONDENTS IN R.P. - APPELLANT IN S.A. --------------------------------------------------------------- ALI, S/O. KATHIRU, ERAMTHARAYIL HOUSE, VARAPETTY KARA, VARAPETTY VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.JOHN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.BHAVADASAN, J. ---------------------------------- C.M. Appl. No.1138/2010 and R.P.No.1172/2010 in S.A. No.699/1996 --------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of January, 2011 ORDER This is a petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking to condone the delay of 233 days in filing the Review Petition. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it is stated that a special leave petition was preferred against the judgment of this court in the second appeal dated 08.03.2010 before the Apex Court, but that was rejected on 27.08.2010. It happened to be dismissed principally for the reason that the Senior Counsel could not reach the court when the case was called. An application for certified copy of the judgment was filed on 27.09.2010, which was obtained on 29.09.2010. The S.L.P. was rejected on 27.08.2010. Therefore, the certified copy was applied for the purpose of the review, only thereafter. His counsel was recovering after undergoing a surgey and he took some time for drafting the R.P. Because of the above reasons, the delay had C.M. Appl. No.1138/2010 and R.P.No.1172/2010 in S.A.No.699/1996 2 occasioned and it is contended that there is no willful latches or negligence on his part in nor filing the R.P. within the stipulated time. It is pointed out that unless the delay is condoned and the matter is heard on merits, irreparable injury will be caused to him. 3. The above explanation does not seems to be satisfactory. So it was felt necessary to examine whether any real injustice has been caused to the review petitioner by the judgment in the second appeal. 4. The very same contentions urged at the time of the hearing of the second appeal are reiterated in the review petition also. This court, in Paragraphs 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the judgment, had considered the claim of the review petitioner based on the document available in the case. It is significant to note that the claim of the petitioner is based on the final decree proceedings in O.S.No.169/1962 before the Munsiff's Court Muvattupuzha. On a perusal of Ext.B2 which is the commissioner's report in the partition suit, it was seen that the C.M. Appl. No.1138/2010 and R.P.No.1172/2010 in S.A.No.699/1996 3 available extent in survey No.320/13 was only 2 cents. Thus it was not possible to understand as to how the plaintiff had obtained 8 cents as claimed by her. Apart from the plaint in the partition suit in O.S.169/1962 marked as Ext.B9. It was noticed that plaint schedule property was only 80 cents and not 88 cents as now claimed. This court had also perused the Ext.B1 document which is the decree in O.S.No.169/1962. The extent of property shown is 80 cents and not 88 cents. Since this court finds no merit in the R.P. itself, no purpose will be served by condoning the delay. Both delay petition and R.P are dismissed. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. ln