The Single Judge rejected a review petition filed after a delay of 1416 days. The court dismissed the delay condonation application and held the petition beyond the scope of review as grounds were already answered in the original order.
Disposal of delay condonation application and rejection of the review petition.
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.VINOD CHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/8TH ASWINA, 1938
RP.No. 845 of 2016 () IN RSA.763/2006
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN RSA 763/2006 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 03-10-2012
REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT.:
BABU
S/O. KAVUNGAL VASU, AGED 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT PANNIYANKARA AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT.:
AYILLALATH ARUNAPRIYA
D/O. DAMODARAN MASTER, AGED 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT VAZHAYUR VILLAGE, ERNAD VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
R BY SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RP.No. 845 of 2016 () IN RSA.763/2006
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE-1 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DATED 16.12.13 IN S.L.P NO. 39016/2013
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL
// TRUE COPY //
P.A TO JUDGE
SB
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
===================== R.P No. 845 of 2016 - G
====================== Dated this the 30th day of September, 2016
O R D E R
The review is filed by the appellant in a R.S.A; who was
the defendant in the suit filed by the respondent here. The R.S.A was disposed of along with a cross objection filed by the plaintiff/respondent. The review petitioner and the respondent are related, the latter being the daughter of the sister of the former. The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for partition claiming
one half share of the properties which devolved on the legal heirs, at the death of her great-grandfather. The trial court and the appellate Court concurred in partitioning the A schedule property between the plaintiff and the defendant in the ratio of 3:6. This Court answered the questions of law framed in the R.S.A against the appellant/review petitioner. The issue framed in the cross objection was also answered against the plaintiff/
2
R.P No. 845 of 2016 - G
respondent. The review is filed with a delay of 1416 days.
questions of law raised were answered. The grounds stated in the review petition are in effect intended at a rehearing of the matter,which is not permissible in an application for review, the contours of which are well defined and requires no reiteration. There is also not even a namesake ground in the review petition as to there being any error apparent on the face of the record of the judgment passed. All the grounds raised have been answered and there is no reason why this review petition should be entertained.
3
R.P No. 845 of 2016 - G
Hon'ble Supreme Court advised the review petitioner to file a review only later. The Special Leave to Appeal having been rejected in the year 2013 this Court is not satisfied that there is a reasonable ground to condone the delay.
For the aforesaid reasons the delay condonation petition stands dismissed and the review would also be rejected for the same being beyond the scope of review as has been laid
down in State of West Bengal and others v. Kamal Sengupta and another [(2008) 8 SCC 612] .
Sd/-
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE
SB/03/10/2016
// true copy //
P.A to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to condone a delay of 1416 days in filing a review petition.
Whether the error alleged qualifies as an error apparent on the face of the record.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of West Bengal and others v. Kamal Sengupta and anotherReferred¶41
State of West Bengal and others v. Kamal Sengupta and another [(2008) 8 SCC 612] · Who else cites this
BABU
AYILLALATH ARUNAPRIYA
K. VINOD CHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
