Dismissed

Joby v. Marykutty Joseph

Kerala HC17 Mar 2011RP/224/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The review petitioners filed a review petition 3382 days after the judgment became final, claiming succession rights. The court held that there was no valid reason for the excessive delay, dismissing the condonation application and rejecting the review petition as barred by limitation.

What did the court decide?

Petition for condonation of delay and subsequent review petition rejected as barred by limitation.

Joby Vs Marykutty Joseph — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2011 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1932

¶3

RP.No. 224 of 2011() ----------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN MFA.910/1988 Dated 30/03/2000

¶4

REVIEW PETITIONER(S): 3RD PARTIES. --------------------------------------------------------

¶5

1. JOBY, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.KUNJUVAREED, THEKKUMTHALA HOUSE, II/423 KAITHONDA ESTATE, CHITTILANCHERRY, MELARCODE VILLAGE, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶6

2. JOY, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.KUNJUVAREED, THEKKUMTHALA HOUSE, II/423 KAITHONDA ESTATE, CHITTILANCHERRY, MELARCODE VILLAGE, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER JOBY, THE 1ST PETITIONER.

¶7

3. JOHNSON, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.KUNJUVAREED, THEKKUMTHALA HOUSE, II/423 KAITHONDA ESTATE, CHITTILANCHERRY, MELARCODE VILLAGE, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER JOBY, THE 1ST PETITIONER.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHAN SRI.BINU MATHEW SRI.TERRY V.JAMES SRI.B.J.JOHN PRAKASH SRI.TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL)

¶9

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 & APPELLANTS:

¶10

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA 695001.

¶12

2. CUSTODIAN OF VESTED FORESTS AND CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, VESTED FORESTS CIRCLE, KOZHIKODE-673592.

¶13

tss

¶14

R.P. NO.224/2011

¶15

3. MARYKUTTY JOSEPH, RESIDING AT EDAPPALLIL HOUSE, ANJUMOORTHY, MANGALAM, ALATHUR TALUK. 678702.

¶16

4. MATHEW JOSEPH, RESIDING AT EDAPPALLIL HOUSE, ANJUMOORTHY, MANGALAM, ALATHUR TALUK. 678702.

¶17

5. JOSEPH JOSEPH, RESIDING AT EDAPPALLIL HOUSE, ANJUMOORTHY, MANGALAM, ALATHUR TALUK. 678702.

¶18

6. ROSAMMA JOSEPH, RESIDING AT EDAPPALLIL HOUSE, ANJUMOORTHY, MANGALAM, ALATHUR TALUK. 678702.

¶19

7. KUTTAN PILLAI, S/O.KARTHIAYANI AMMA, FACT DEPOT OFFICER, PUTHIYANKAM P.O., ALATHUR TALUK 678702.

¶20

ADV. SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA, SENIOR ADVOCATE

¶21

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

tss

¶23

R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ

¶24

........................................... CMA 669 of 2011 & R.P.NO. 224 OF 2011

¶25

............................................ DATED THIS THE 17^th DAY OF MARCH, 2011

ORDER

BASANT, J

I.A.2267 of 2010

Heard. Leave petition is allowed. Number the petition for condonation of delay and also the Review petition.

¶30

CMA NO.669 OF 2011

¶31

The 7^th respondent Kuttan Pillai had filed a claim before the Forest Tribunal claiming exemption from vesting under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. His claim was initially allowed under Section 3(2) and 3(3) of the Act. But the Tribunal later reviewed its order and allowed the review petition. The petition was dismissed. Against that, MFA No.910 of 1988 was preferred before this court. It is significant to note that the said appeal was preferred not by the claimant/7^th respondent, but by the transferees from the claimant. M.F.A. 910 of 1988 was disposed of by this court by judgment dated 30.3.2000. That decision has become final without challenge by

rp 224/2011

any of the parties.

It is at this juncture that the petitioner has come before this court with a review petition on 13.8.2010. The review petition is accompanied by a petition to condone the delay of 3382 days in filing the review petition. The application for condonation of delay is stoutly opposed. The learned Special Government Pleader contends that absolutely no valid reason exists justifying the prayer for condonation of delay.

¶36

We have heard both sides. We have considered the submissions in detail. It is in the interests of the republic that there must be an end to litigation. That is the bedrock on which all law of limitation is founded and rests on. The delay in filing this review petition is huge and enormous. The short question is whether there is sufficient reason to justify the prayer for condonation of delay.

¶37

The original claimant is the 7^th respondent in the appeal. Appeal was not preferred by him but by a transferee from him during the pendency of the proceedings. Thereafter, rights in the property allegedly changed hands at least thrice and the review petitioners became entitled to the property. It is too much to

¶38

rp 224/2011

¶39

¶40

assume that the review petitioners were blissfully unaware of the pendency of the proceedings or the fact that an earlier transferee had challenged the order passed against the original claimant/7^th respondent in the appeal.

¶41

To put it simply, we are not persuaded to agree that there are sufficient reasons to justify the prayer for condonation of delay of about a decade in filing this review petition.

¶42

This petition for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently review petition shall stand rejected as barred by limitation.

¶43

R.BASANT, JUDGE

¶44

K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE

¶45

lgk

Joby v. Marykutty Joseph

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joby v. Marykutty Joseph

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

The Regional Director, E.S.I. Corpn. Vs M/S.Kitex Garments Ltd.

E.S.I.Corporation Vs Apsara Tourist Home

Pradeep.P. Vs the Circle Inspector of Police, Haripad

Jacob Taliat Vs the Marine Products Exports Development

Leela Raghavan Vs State of Kerala

N.C.Avarankutty Haji Vs the Superintendent of Police