The High Court of Kerala dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging an order allowing exclusion of delay under Section 14 of the Limitation Act for a review application. The Court held that even if the suit was dismissed under Section 14, the pendency of a Section 152 application rendered Section 5 applicable to condone delay.
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 THOMAS P.JOSEPH
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/18TH MAGHA 1934
CRP.No. 45 of 2013 ()
IA NO.714/2012 IN IA NO.713/2012 IN OS NO.365/2000 OF I ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/1ST COUNTER PETITIONER/2ND DEFENDANT:
SANKARAN NAIR, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANA PILLAI TC 17/1551, CHANDRIKA BHAVAN, CHENGALLOOR POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. SRI.G.P.SHINOD
SRI.MANU V.
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS 2 TO 6/PLAINTIFFS 3 TO 8 & LRS OF PLAINTIFFS 1 & 2 AND LRS OF THE 1ST DEFENDANT :
CRP NO.45/2013
2
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
====================================
C.R.P. No.45 of 2013
====================================
Dated this the 07th day of February, 2013
O R D E R
Learned First Additional Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram has passed a final decree for partition in O.S. No.365 of 2000 as per order on I.A. Nos.713 and 714 of 2012. But in the final judgment, as against the requirement provided by Rule 236 of the Civil Rules of Practice, learned Sub Judge omitted to state amount of stamp duty payable by the party concerned for engrossing final decree. Respondents 1 to 12 filed an application purporting to be under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”) as I.A. No.1092 of 2007 to correct the final judgment and decree pointing out that in the final judgment and decree there is no mention about amount of stamp duty to be paid. That application was dismissed on 18.11.2012 as remedy is not under Sec.152 of the Code. After five years, respondents 1 and 2 filed application for review of final judgment and decree requesting to exclude the delay during which time I.A. No.1092 of 2007 was pending. Application was allowed and the delay was condoned under
C.R.P No.45 of 2013
-: 2 :-
Section 14 of the Limitation Act (for short, “the Act”). That order is under challenge.
review of final judgment and decree in the suit is pending. Hence I am inclined to entertain this Original Petition in challenge of the order allowing exclusion of time.
C.R.P No.45 of 2013
-: 3 :-
The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.
vsv
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Section 14 of the Limitation Act applies to condoning delay in review application when a prior Section 152 Code of Civil Procedure application was pending.
Whether pending Section 152 application is sufficient ground under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone delay.
SANKARAN NAIR
N.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR
SUSEELA DEVI
THOMAS P.JOSEPH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
