Dismissed

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. Ammini Amma

Kerala HC4 Dec 2008CRP/656/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed a Citizens' Miscellaneous Application seeking condonation of a 1226-day delay in filing a revision petition to the Supreme Court. The Court rejected the petitioner's explanation as totally lacking ground for a delay spanning over three years before the application for the certified copy was even filed.

What did the court decide?

The C.M. Application seeking condonation of delay of 1226 days was dismissed, and the underlying Civil Revision Petition was held barred by limitation.

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Vs Ammini… — 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

THURSDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2008 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1930

¶5

CRP.No. 656 of 2008

¶6

--------------------------------OPELE.406/2002 of ADDL.D.C. & ADDL.MACT, ALAPPUZHA.

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER/IST RESPONDENT:

¶8

POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., LOCAL OFFICE, NANGIARKULANGARA, KAYAMKULAM, REP. BY ITS MANAGER.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI

¶10

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

¶11

AMMINI AMMA, AGED 54, W/O. SIVARAMAN NAIR, PURNAMI, KOIPALLIKARRAZHAMA, OLAKETTIYAMBALAM, PERINGALA VILLAGE.

¶12

ADV. SRI.VINCENT JOSEPH

¶13

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

K.P. Balachandran, J.

¶15

C.M.Appl.No.778 of 2008 in C.R.P.No.656 of 2008

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Heard counsel on both sides.

¶18

C.M.Appl.No.778/08 is filed seeking for

¶19

condonation of delay of 1226 days in filing this revision. The reasons stated by the petitioner is

¶20

that by order dated 22.11.2004, the Additional District Judge, Alappuzha disposed of the original petition; that application for certified copy of the judgment was filed on 28.4.2008; that copy was obtained on 5.5.2008; that the certified copy was

¶21

received in the office of the petitioner on

¶22

8.5.2008; that as there was no sufficient staff in

¶23

the office of the petitioner at Kayamkulam, the matter was forwarded to the Regional Head Quarters of the petitioner at Bangalore on 12.5.2008; that on 9.6.2008 the Regional Office granted approval to

¶24

file the CRP and the file was received on 15.6.2008 and that this revision is filed on 26.6.2008.

¶25

CRP 656/08

¶26

¶27

There is absolutely no explanation in the affidavit as to why no copy application was made from 22.11.2004, the day on which the order assailed was passed, till 28.4.2008, the day on which copy application was filed, when even within that time, the time to prefer revision had already expired. There is no meaning in furnishing any amount of explanation for the delay from 24.8.2008 alone, when there is no explanation at all for the delay of several years between 22.11.2004 and 28.4.2008. Hence, there is absolutely no ground to condone the delay of as much as 1226 days in filing the revision.

¶28

This C.M. Application is, hence, dismissed.

¶29

Consequently, the revision is barred by limitation and is dismissed.

¶30

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

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. Ammini Amma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. Ammini Amma

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

Ravunni @ Chandran Vs Sarala Bhaskaran and Others

Manherikandi Damodaran Vs Kooven Vijayan & Ors.

Fr.Tom Thomas Vs Fr.James Jacob

Tharipadath Muhammed Vs Muthalakandy Malu

State of Kerala and Another Vs K.T.Muhammadunni and Another

Ramabhadran Vs Kannan Podiyan