Dismissed

V.K. Gopalan v. Subramanian and Others

Kerala HC15 Jan 2010RP/793/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a review petition filed by the first respondent in A.S. No. 315 of 1997. The application sought condonation of an 821-day delay, citing the petitioner's age and ill health. The court held that no sufficient reasons were provided and that the petition was filed as an afterthought.

What did the court decide?

The delay petition and the review petition (RP.No.793 of 2009) were both dismissed.

V.K. Gopalan Vs Subramanian and Others — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2010 / 25TH POUSHA 1931 RP.No. 793 of 2009() -------------------in A.S. No.315 of 1997

¶4

REVIEW PETITIONER(S): IST RESPONDENT ------------------------------------

¶5

V.K.GOPALAN, S/O.VALIYAPARAMBIL KUNHIKARAPPAN, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, HOUSE NO.7/19, KAKKANAD P.O., B.M.COLLEGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶6

BY ADV. SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN

¶7

RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT ------------------------

¶8

1. SUBRAMANIAN, S/O.VALIYAPARAMBIL KARAPPAN NOW RESIDING AT MANALOOR VILLAGE, POST MANALOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

2. KAMALAVATHY, (DIED ON 30.10.2009),

¶10

3. CHANDRAVATHY, W/O.SUGATHAN, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.B/2034, SATELLITE HOUSING COLONY, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶11

4. BALAN, S/O.KUTTIKKATT VELAPPAN, THANNIYAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶12

5. MANOHARAN, S/O.KUTTIKKATT BALAN, AYYANTHOLE VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶13

6. RAVEENDRAN, S/O.KUTTIKKATT BALAN, THANNIYAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶14

7. SATHEESAN, S/O.KUTTIKKATT BALAN, THANNIYAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶15

8. JALAJA, W/O.GOKULANATHAN, KANIYAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, PALAZHI DESOM, KARAMUKKU VILLAGE, P.O.MANALUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶16

ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) FOR R1 SMT.R.RAJITHA FOR R1 SRI.P.K.SAJEEV FOR R3,4 TO 8

¶17

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

HARUN-UL-RASHID, J

¶19

C.M.APPN. NO.1300 OF 2009 & REVIEW PETITION NO.793 OF 2009 IN

¶20

A.S. NO. 315 OF 1997

¶21

--------------------------------------------------Dated this the 15^th day of January, 2010

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The petition is filed by the first respondent in

¶24

A.S.No.315/97 praying to condone the delay of 821 days in filing the review petition.

¶25

This court passed a decree for partition on 13^th April, 2007. After hearing the appellant and the contesting respondent, the application preferred for Special Leave to Appeal as SLP(Civil) No.18450 of 2007, was dismissed by the Apex Court as per order dated 8.10.2007. It is averred in the affidavit filed in support of the delay petition that the petitioner is an 80 year old man that he is suffering from variety of illness that he was under treatment for a long period and therefore was unable to file a review petition earlier.

¶26

Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by this court dated 13.4.2007, S.L.P (Civil) No.18450/2007 was filed and it was dismissed on 8.10.2007. The review petition and

¶27

C.M.APPN. 1300&RP NO.793/2009 -2-

¶28

delay petition were filed on 12^th August, 2009. Apart from the bald averments in paragraph 2 of the affidavit, no sufficient reasons are stated for not preferring the review petition within a reasonable period after the disposal of the SLP. Since the S.L.P (Civil) was dismissed on 8.10.2007, there is no justification whatsoever for filing the review petition with a petition for condonation of delay on 12^th August, 2009, that is approximately after a period of 22 months. I do not find any reason to condone the delay in filing the review petition. The reason stated for condonation of delay is vague and not convincing. Filing of the review long after the dismissal of SLP is an after thought and there is no bonafides in filing the review petition.

¶29

In the result, the delay petition stands dismissed. Consequently the review petition namely RP.No.793 of 2009 also stands dismissed.

¶30

HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE

¶31

jma

V.K. Gopalan v. Subramanian and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.K. Gopalan v. Subramanian and Others

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

M.P.Sreenarayanan Vs Hussain

Vs

Radhakrishnan Vs Syam Kumar

Rev.Fr.Joseph Veliyathil Vs Appu

Domkage Biddaruge Hassan Vs Kudege Bavage Kaddha

Kutty Mannadasiar Vs A.A Swaminathan