Appeal against an order dismissing a review petition and interim application where the appellant alleged delayed production of documents due to lawyer's default. The court rejected the claim as false due to document dates post-dating the trial and dismissed the petition with costs.
Review petition and I.A. No. 1889 of 2008 dismissed with costs to the respondent.
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 K.P.BALACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 12TH BHADRA 1930
RP.No. 933 of 2008
---------------------(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RSA 545 OF 2008 DATED 21.07.2008
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT
VIJAYAN @ APPU, S/O.ANANDAN, AGED 59 YRS 9/238, KUZHIKKATTIL, THOTTOOR, KAIPATTOOR VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK.
BY ADV. VIJAYAN @ APPU (PARTY IN PERSON)
RESPONDENT: APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF -----------------------------------------
VILASINI, W/O.PARAMESWARAN, KUZHIKKATTIL HOUSE, KAIPATTOOR (VIA), ARAKKUNNAM, KAIPATTOOR (PO), ERNAKULAM.
BY ADV. SRI K.R. MOHANAN
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RP 933/2008 in RSA 545/08
1
K.P. BALACHANDRAN, J.
R.P. No 933 of 2008 & I.A. No 1889 of 2008
in R.S.A. No 545 of 2008
Dated this the 3rd September 2008
O R D E R
Party who is appearing in person is absent.
in irreparable loss and injury to him. He has also prayed for those documents being received in evidence for the purpose of review of
RP 933/2008 in RSA 545/08
2
the judgment passed.
RP 933/2008 in RSA 545/08 3
alleged to have been given by the petitioner to the Secretary of the Edakkattuvayal Grama Panchayat for issuance of a certificate showing ownership of building No. 238 of Ward IX. These are the documents produced along with I.A. No 1889 of 2008. All these documents have come into existence in 2006 and thereafter. The suit was disposed of by the trial court on 30.10.2004 and the appeal was disposed of on 24.10.2007. Obviously the allegation that all these documents were entrusted to the lawyer in the trial court is nothing but utter falsehood as the documents could not have been entrusted with the lawyer at any point of time before the dismissal of the suit as the documents produced have all come into existence during 2006 and thereafter. Production of documents which were not produced till the disposal of the the suit is not a ground for review of the judgment. This review petition and also I.A. No 1889 of 2008 are dismissed with costs to the respondent who appeared through counsel.
Sd/K.P. BALACHANDRAN Judge 03/09/2008 en [true copy]
RP 933/2008 in RSA 545/08 4
VIJAYAN @ APPU, S/O.ANANDAN
VILASINI, W/O.PARAMESWARAN
K.P. BALACHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
