Kerala High Court
Babu vs Ayillalath Arunapriya on 3 October, 2012
Author: K. Vinod Chandran
Bench: K.Vinod Chandran
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.
2. The issue was considered elaborately and the 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. The review petitioner had also approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the judgment which challenge was rejected at the stage of special leave to appeal by order dated 16/12/13. The ground raised in the affidavit accompanying the delay condonation application is that the Advocate who appeared for the review petitioner before the 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