The court dismissed an application to condone delay for filing a review petition regarding a matrimonial appeal. The review petition was subsequently dismissed due to the finding that sufficient cause for the delay was not established.
Application to condone delay and review petition dismissed.
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 A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU
MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1940
RP.No. 138 of 2019 IN Mat.Appeal. 1002/2014
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.11.2017 IN Mat.Appeal 1002/2014 of HIGHCOURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER:
JISHA M., AGED 26 YEARS D/O.RAJKUMAR, MALAYARUKIL VEEDU, CHERUMUNDASHERRI AMSOM DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT679512.
BY ADV. SMT.S.SMITHA (PARAKKAL)
RESPONDENT:
KRISHNADASAN, AGED 36 YEARS S/O.CHINNAN, KIZHAKKEKARA VEETTIL, PANAYAMPADAM, KARIMBA, MANNARKKAD TALUK-678597.
BY ADV.R. LEELA
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2
C.M.Appln.No.1/2019 in R.P.No.138/2019 & R.P.No.138/2019 in Mat.A.No.1002/2014
ORDER
SHAFFIQUE, J
The C.M.Application is filed to condone the delay of 401 days in preferring the review petition. The application is opposed by the counsel appearing for the respondent inter alia stating that sufficient cause has not been shown to condone the delay. In the affidavit filed in support of the above application it is stated that after 2016, the petitioner contacted the counsel only on 18.12.2018 and only then she had come to know about the disposal of the case. When a matter is pending before this Court and the petitioner had engaged a counsel, it is her obligation to find out the status of the case. The allegation is that there was no intimation from the counsel. No affidavit of the counsel has been filed. That apart, the review petition is filed through another counsel.
We are not satisfied with the reasons stated in the affidavit. The application to condone delay is dismissed.
Consequently, the review petition is also dismissed.
Sd/-
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE
Sd/-
A.M.BABU, JUDGE
True copy
kp
P.A. To Judge.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether sufficient cause has been shown to condone the 401-day delay in filing the review petition.
Jisha M.
Krishnadan
A.M. Shaffique
A.M. Babu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
