Sri Kailash Chandra Sharma and 5 Ors. Vs Manoj Kalita

This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 550 days in preferring the accompanying review petition filed seeking review of the judgment and order dated 14.05.2024 in RSA

¶29

Page No.# 3/4

¶30

No.262/2010.

¶31

A Special Leave to Appeal was filed under Article 136 of the Constitution against the Judgment and Order dated 14.05.2024 in RSA No.262/2010 and the said appeal was dismissed by condoning the delay by the Supreme Court. Thereupon the accompanying review application was filed on 16.12.2025 with various defects.

¶32

This Court finds it very pertinent to take note of the various defects with which the review application was filed. The defects were:

¶33

(i). Mobile No./Whatsapp No. of the petitioner was not given in the filing form;

¶34

(ii). The Annexures were not certified;

¶35

(iii). One page each in between the page Nos.29 & 30 and 31 & 32 were missing;

¶36

(iv). Condonation petition not filed;

¶37

(v). Court fee was short by Rs.1.50p.

¶38

The defects were rectified only on 07.02.2026. The question arises as to whether the Review Petitioner had acted bona fide?

¶39

In the backdrop of the above, this Court finds it very pertinent to take note of the grounds taken to show sufficient cause. The grounds so taken is that the review applicant was not aware that a review can be filed, even after dismissal of the SLP.

¶40

It is the opinion of this Court that based upon the manner in which the defects were put in the review application at the time of filing and the grounds so assigned in the application do not appear to be bona fide, but rather an

¶41

Page No.# 4/4

¶42

attempt to further prolong a dispute which stood settled. Under such circumstances, as the instant application is not filed bona fide, this Court is not inclined to issue notice in the instant application.

¶43

Accordingly, the instant application stands dismissed.

¶44

In view of the dismissal of the instant application, the accompanying review petition so filed cannot be entertained.

¶45

JUDGE

¶46

Comparing Assistant

Sri Kailash Chandra Sharma and 5 Ors. v. Manoj Kalita

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Kailash Chandra Sharma and 5 Ors. v. Manoj Kalita

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bikalanga Kalyan Kendra Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Baser Ali Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Mahabir Prasad Agarwalla Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Hakim Ali Vs the Union of India

Sitaram Kanoo and 17 Others Vs Nisarg Hivarea, IAS and Anr.

Eliza Rahman Vs the State of Assam and 10 Ors.