Kerala High Court
M/S. Tip Top Furniture Industries vs Simi Salim on 3 September, 2012
Author: A.V.Ramakrishna Pillai
Bench: Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, A.V.Ramakrishna Pillai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
&
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/23RD ASWINA 1934
RP.No. 909 of 2012 (D)
---------------------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CMAP.NO.608/2012 IN RFA.699/2012
DATED 03-09-2012
---------------------------------------------------
REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1. M/S. TIP TOP FURNITURE INDUSTRIES,
A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM,
HAVING OFFICE AT SANTHI NAGAR, PARAPPUR, KOTTAKKAL,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
K.T.SAIDALAVI, AGED 57 YEARS,
S/O.K.T.KUNHIKOYA, RESIDING AT KUNNATHODI HOUSE,ATTERY,
PUTHOOR POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
2. K.T.SAIDALAVI,AGED 57 YEARS,S/O.K.T.KUNHIKOYA,
RESIDING AT KUNNATHODI HOUSE,ATTERY, PUTHOOR POST,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. (MANAGING PARTNER).
3. A.THITHUMMA,AGED 51 YEARS,W/O.K.T.SAIDALAVI,
RESIDING AT KUNNATHODI HOUSE,
ATTERY, PUTHOOR POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY SRI.S.SREEKUMAR,SENIOR ADVOCATE
ADVS.SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE
SRI.M.A.MOHAMMED SIRAJ
SRI.P.PRIJITH
SRI.ANEESH JAMES
RESPONDENT(S):
-----------------------------
1. SIMI SALIM,AGED 41 YEARS,W/O.SALIM HAMEED, FAIZAL MANZIL,
NH-47,VETTU ROAD, KANIYAPURAM POST, PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 301.
2. SALIM HAMEED, AGED 47 YEARS,FAIZAL MANZIL, NH-47, VETTU ROAD,
KANIYAPURAM POST, PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 301.
3. ABDUL LATHEEF,S/O.SYED RAWTHER, TC 31/1526-3,
THEKKUVILAYIL,TENNIS CLUB ENCLAVE, KAWDIAR P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 003.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 15-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
sts
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
&
A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ.
-----------------------------------
R.P.No.909 of 2012
in R.F.A.No.699 of 2012
------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of October, 2012
O R D E R
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
1.This application for review is against an order by which an application for condonation of delay of 850 days was allowed; on which, notice was issued by this Court on 22.8.2012 through special messenger, fixing the date of appearance as 3.9.2012. The endorsement of the office shows that the notice was served before 25.8.2012. When the matter came up on 3.9.2012, there was no appearance for the respondents. It was thus that the application for condonation of delay was allowed.
2.We see that the appeal has hence been admitted and the balance court fee due after admission has been remitted. An interim order has also been granted in favour of the appellants.
RP.909/12 2
3.Though the respondents in this appeal who are the review petitioners did not appear on 3.9.2012, the date fixed for hearing of the appeal, they had appeared on the next day, in effect, seeking opportunity to explain why the delay ought not to have been condoned. In the fitness of things, we think that they are entitled to an opportunity of hearing on C.M.Application 608/12. For this reason, we are of the view that there is error apparent on the face of the record, as appropriate opportunity is not seen extended to the review petitioners as regards hearing on the C.M.application. For the aforesaid reasons, this review petition is allowed. Order dated 3.9.2012 is recalled, however preserving in tact the order admitting the RFA and the interim orders in that appeal. Post the C.M.application No.608/12 for further consideration on 18.10.2012.
Sd/-
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN Judge.
Sd/-
A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI Judge.
kkb.15/10.