Rasheed v. Rahmath
Case brief
What is this about?
The single judge dismissed the review petition and the accompanying condonation application, holding that the 100-day delay was not sufficiently explained and the grounds raised did not reveal an error apparent on the face of the record.
What did the court decide?
C.M.Application and review petition dismissed; no order as to costs.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
TUESDAY,THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 8TH KARTHIKA, 1940
RP.No. 710 of 2017 IN OP(C). 169/2014
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP(C)No.169/2014 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 22-03-2017
REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
RASHEED
S/O.HASSANKUNJU, AGED 63 YEARS, ELLATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KATTAPANAKARA, KATTAPPANA VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, PIN-685508.
BY ADVS. SRI.T.KRISHNANUNNI (SR.) SRI.E.A.BIJUMON
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether delay of 100 days in filing review petition is condonable as sufficient cause.
Whether the grounds of error of law and facts fall within the scope of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.
Whether the review petition is maintainable in the absence of error apparent on the face of record.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Rasheed
- respondent
Rahmath
- respondent
Nazia
- respondent
Iysha
- respondent
Aseeb
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court