The court condones a 3253-day delay in filing a writ appeal. The delay is attributed to the pendency of a review application, which following dismissal allowed the doctrine of merger to lapse, enabling the appeal to be filed.
Delay of 3253 days in filing the writ appeal is condoned; the appeal is ordered to be numbered and listed.
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.
C.M.P.No.11123 of 2022 in W.A.No. SR 49760 of 2022
C.M.P.No.11123 of 2022 in W.A.No. SR 49760 of 2022
THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice)
This petition has been filed by the petitioner to condone the delay of 3253 days in filing the writ appeal against the order dated 26.4.2013 passed in W.P.No.14670 of 2003.
Page 1 of 7
C.M.P.No.11123 of 2022 in W.A.No. SR 49760 of 2022
Page 2 of 7
C.M.P.No.11123 of 2022 in W.A.No. SR 49760 of 2022
application before this court and, therefore, it is to be excluded. He further submitted that if the delay on account of pendency of review application is excluded, there is only a short delay of 29 days in filing the writ appeal. He would submit that the 29 days delay is neither willful nor wanton and it was on account of communication gap between the counsel on record and the party. Therefore, the delay may be condoned.
the materials available on record.
Page 3 of 7
C.M.P.No.11123 of 2022 in W.A.No. SR 49760 of 2022
"4. This Court is at a loss to understand as to how the present review petition is maintainable. Order has been passed by this Court to provide 6 feet pathway. If the petitioner has any grievance with the said order, the course open to the petitioner is to file appeal and the petitioner cannot, under the guise of a review, once again reagitate the entire case for the purpose of obtaining orders, that would favour him. No error apparent on the face of the record has been pointed out by the petitioner to insist that a review application is maintainable. Such being the case, no occasion arises for condoning the delay in filing the petition for review."
Page 4 of 7
C.M.P.No.11123 of 2022 in W.A.No. SR 49760 of 2022
___________ Page 5 of 7_
C.M.P.No.11123 of 2022 in W.A.No. SR 49760 of 2022
challenge the original order passed in the writ petition by way of writ appeal, which the petitioner has done in the instant case.
bbr
___________ Page 6 of 7_
C.M.P.No.11123 of 2022 in W.A.No. SR 49760 of 2022
THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
bbr
CMP.No.11123 of 2022 in W.A.No. SR 49760 of 2022
10.10.2022
___________ Page 7 of 7_
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the substantial delay of 3253 days in filing a writ appeal can be condoned when the delay was attributable to the pendency of a review application.
Whether the period of delay caused by the communication gap between the party and counsel can be factored into the calculation of substantial cause.
Whether the doctrine of merger precludes challenging the original order after the review application was dismissed.
Petitioner
First Respondent/Writ Petitioner
Acting Chief Justice
D. KRISHNAKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
