The High Court refused to condone a delay of 1658 days in filing a civil revision petition. The Court dismissed the application, finding the delay unexplained and barred, while noting the petitioner was also failing to comply with prior writ court orders regarding release deeds.
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
THURSDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2009 / 11TH POUSHA 1930
CRP.No. 807 of 2008
--------------------EP.93/1997 of SUB COURT, MANJERI
REVN. PETITIONER/PEITIONER/DECREE HOLDER:
THE SECRETARY, PERINTALMANNA TALUK RURAL HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., PERINTALMANNA.
BY ADV. SRI.WILSON URMESE
SRI.KURIAKOSE G.THEKKEL
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/JUDGMENT DEBTORS:
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J.
and C.M. Appl. No. 1008 of 2008
O R D E R
C.M. Appl. No. 1008 of 2008 :
This is an application for condonation of delay of 1658 days in filing the Civil Revision Petition assailing recording of Full Satisfaction of Decree and claims of Execution Petition No.93/97 by the Sub Judge, Manjeri vide order impugned.
CRP No.807/08 and CM.Appl. No.1008/08
-:2:-
2nd respondent in the said writ petition to execute release deed in respect of mortgage bond executed by the respondent judgment debtor in favour of the petitioner at the Sub Registry Office, Perinthalmanna in respect of the property of the judgment debtors and also to release the title deeds and other documents of the judgment debtors pledged with the bank. This Court, vide judgment dated 26.05.08, allowed the writ petition and granted the reliefs as prayed for above. The petitioner decree holder was granted an outer limit of three months to comply with the said direction. If at all the petitioner decree holder had any grievance against the said judgment, they should have preferred writ appeal against the said judgment.
CRP No.807/08 and CM.Appl. No.1008/08
-:3:-
the said Review Petition is dismissed today. Petitioner has not complied with the directions also. No writ appeal also is filed assailing the judgment in the writ petition.
CRP No.807/08 and CM.Appl. No.1008/08 -:4:-
thereafter and due to administrative and other reasons revision could not be filed earlier and in the meanwhile, the judgment debtors filed WPC No.12492/08, aforementioned, seeking a direction to have the release deed executed. According to the petitioner that writ petition was disposed of without prejudice to the right of the Society to seek appropriate reliefs and immediately, an application was made on 24.08.08 for certified copy of order dated 08.12.03 and copy of order was obtained on 16.10.08 and CRP was filed on 07.11.08 and thus there occurred a delay of 1658 days in filing the revision and that such delay is caused due to administrative and other reasons stated above.
CRP No.807/08 and CM.Appl. No.1008/08 -:5:-
deed in respect of the property mortgaged by the judgment debtors and to release their title deeds. There is also nothing on record to show that the petitioner raised a little finger in the matter before filing of the writ petition in 2008 despite the fact that the impugned order was passed on 08.12.03.
In the result, refusing to condone the delay of as much as 1658
CRP No.807/08 and CM.Appl. No.1008/08
-:6:-
days in filing the Revision, I dismiss this CM. Application.
CRP No. 807 OF 2008:
CM.Appl. No.1008/08 seeking condonation of delay of as much
as 1658 days in filing the CRP is dismissed vide order passed today. Hence the CRP is hopelessly barred and is dismissed.
K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE
ttb
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the inordinate delay of 1658 days in filing the civil revision petition against the order recording full satisfaction of decree can be condoned.
Whether the explanation of administrative reasons for the delay is satisfactory or valid.
Whether the lower court's order recording full satisfaction of the decree as of 08.12.03 was correctly challenged given the petitioner's inaction.
THE SECRETARY, PERINTALMANNA TALUK RURAL HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.
K.JANAKIKUTTY
SETHUMADHAVAN
K.P.BALACHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
