Dismissed

State of Kerala,Rep.by Prl.Secy.to Govt. v. Mohammed Kutty and Another

Kerala HC9 Dec 2008CRP/340/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a condonation of delay application filed by the State of Kerala. The petition sought to file a revision against an order from 1997, with a delay of over 3661 days. The Court held that the State could not be allowed to assail the order after such an exceptional lapse. Consequently, the C.M. application was dismissed, and the pending revision petition was barred by limitation.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay of 3661 days refused; C.M. Application dismissed; Revision petition stayed/bars by limitation.

State of Kerala,Rep.by Prl.Secy.to Govt. Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2008 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1930

¶5

CRP.No. 340 of 2008

¶6

¶7

IA.3/1994 & IA.4/1994 of TALUK LAND BOARD, KODUNGALLOOR

¶8

REVN. PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

¶9

STATE OF KERALA.

¶10

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.R.BINDU

¶11

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:

¶12

MOHAMMEDKUTTY, S/O.MOHAMMED, RAYAMARAKKAR VEETTIL, KADAPUURAM.

¶13

BEERAVUNNY,S/O.MOHAMMED, RAYAMARAKKAR VEETTIL, KADAPPURAM.

¶14

ADV. SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN FOR R1 & R2

¶15

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

K.P. Balachandran, J.

¶17

C.M.Appl.No.314 of 2008 & C.R.P.No.340 of 2008

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This is an application seeking for condonation

¶20

of delay of as much as 3661 days in filing the revision petition. The impugned order is dated 25.3.1997. The averment in the affidavit shows that the proposal for filing revision was forwarded to the Office of the Advocate General on 15.1.1998 without certified copy of the order to be assailed. Assuming that the said statement is true, it was up to the Advocate General or the Government Pleader, as the case may be, to cause those responsible to get down certified copy of the impugned order at the earliest and to file revision without any further delay. It appears further that the Government Pleader was waiting for instructions being obtained regarding the reasons for the delay from the concerned authorities and that also was obtained only much later. Whatever be the reasons,

¶21

CRP 340/08 2

¶22

the petitioner/State cannot be allowed to assail the order after lapse of as much as 3661 days.

¶23

In the above view, refusing to condone the delay of as much as 3661 days in filing the revision petition, I dismiss this C.M. Application. Consequently, the revision petition also stands dismissed as barred by limitation.

¶24

9^th December, 2008 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv

State of Kerala,Rep.by Prl.Secy.to Govt. v. Mohammed Kutty and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Kerala,Rep.by Prl.Secy.to Govt. v. Mohammed Kutty and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smitha Thomas Vs John Varghese @ Manoj

G.Arun Kumar and Another Vs Alexander Varghese

L.Premalatha Amma Vs B.Salil

K.S.E.B Vs Sri.Ouseph

State of Kerala Vs Rosy

K.S.E.B Vs Aleykutty