Kerala High Court
CRP/1883/1991 of DAMODARAN DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRI Vs DAMODARAN PARAMESWARAN NAMBOODIRI on 21 November 1997
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013/26TH POUSHA 1934 CRP.No. 1883 of 1991 (B) ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN OS.131/1979 of MUNSIFF COURT,MUVATTUPUZHA DATED 03-01-1991 REVISION PETITIONER(S):
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013/26TH POUSHA 1934
CRP.No. 1883 of 1991 (B)
------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER IN OS.131/1979 of MUNSIFF COURT,MUVATTUPUZHA DATED 03-01-1991
REVISION PETITIONER(S):---------------------- DAMODARAN DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRI,KOTTACKAL ILLOM, VARAPPETTYKKARA,VARAPPETTYKKARA VILLAGE.
BY ADV. SRI.M.C.NAMBIAR
RESPONDENT(S):
-------------
1. DAMODARAN PARAMESWARAN NAMBOODIRI,
RESIDING AT KALAPPURACKAL,
VARAPPETTYKKARA, VARAPPETTYKKARA VILLAGE.
2. UMADEVI ANTHARJANAM,
VARAPPETTYKKARA, VARAPPETTYKKARA VILLAGE.
3. DAMODARAN NARAYANAN NAMBOODIRI,
VARAPPETTYKKARA, VARAPPETTYKKARA VILLAGE.
BY ADVS. SRI.K.N.NARAYANA PILLAI SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
stu
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
====== = = = = = = = = = =
Page 1 of 2
C.M.A.No.541/2012M.J.C.No.542/2012in
R.P.No.49/2008in
C.R.P.No.1883 OF 1991
= = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 16[th] day of January, 2013
O R D E R
Review Petition was filed by one of the plaintiffs in aSuit for Redemption. That petition had been dismissed for non-taking of steps within time. Now the present petition is filed torestore the review petition to file after condoning the delay of1110 days. In fact, the review petition had been filed with apetition to condone delay of 36 days. Orders passed by the courtin the review petition would indicate that review happened to bedismissed for non-prosecution at a stage when delay in filing thispetition also remained to be considered.
I do not find any merit in the petition also for restoring thereview petition as no satisfactory reason has been stated forcondoning the inordinate delay. The M.J.C and petition tocondone delay are dismissed.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE.
Page 2 of 2
Loading citations and judicial treatment…