Dismissed
K.S.E.Board v. Joseph
Kerala HCCRP/136/2008
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT :…
What the court decided
AI extract
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
FRIDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2008 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1930
CRP.No. 136 of 2008()
--------------------OPELE.175/1997 of ADDL.D.C. & ADDL.MACT,ALAPPUZHA.
REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT
---------------------KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB
RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER
JOSEPH,S/O. XAVIER,@ C.X.JOSE,AGED 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHALLITHARA HOUSE ERAMALLOOR MURI, EZHUPUNNA VILLAGE,CHERTHALA TALUK ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.K.K.RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI FOR R1 SMT.R.LEKSHMI FOR R1
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
C.R.P.No.136 of 2008 & C.M.Appln.No.113/2008
Dated this the 6th June, 2008.
O R D E R
C.M.Appln.No.113/2008 is filed to condone the delay of
700 days in filing the revision. Petition is opposed by the respondent submitting that there is no satisfactory reason or proper explanation for the inordinate delay. Counsel for the respondent further submitted that the entire amount awarded by the District Court as compensation was received by the respondent. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was also heard. The affidavit filed by the Assistant Executive Engineer, KSEB, does not explain the inordinate delay of 700 days in filing the revision. Though the order was passed on 29.8.2005, the certified copy was applied only on 18.8.2007 and was received on 28.9.2007. Thereafter, the revision was filed on 12.2.2008. In such circumstances, C.M.Appln.No.113/2008, petition to condone the delay in filing the revision, is dismissed. Consequently, the revision petition is also dismissed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE
nj.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the inordinate delay of 700 days in filing the revision petition warrants condonation.
Whether the lack of satisfactory explanation for the delay justifies dismissal of the condonation application.
Kerala State Electricity Board
Joseph
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court