IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 1069 of 2009()
1. A.V.ABDU,S/O.MOHAMMED,ANTHYOOR VALAPPIL
... Petitioner
Vs
1. A.V.ABDUL KHADER,ANTHIYUR VALAPPIL HOUSE
... Respondent
2. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY
3. TALUK LAND BOARD,
4. TAHSILDAR,PONNANI.
5. A.V.KHADEEJA,PALLIKKARA,
6. A.V.FATHIMA,PADINJARE VALAPPIL,
7. A.V.KULSU,NEAR VALAYANKULAM,
8. A.V.VEERANKUTTY,ANTHIYOOR VALAPPIL HOUSE
9. A.V.RUKHIYA,VATTATHUR VALAPPIL HOUSE,
10. A.V.IYYACHU,ANAKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :14/01/2010
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
----------------------------------------
R.P.No.1069 OF 2009 IN C.R.P NO.1830/1994
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of January 2010
----------------------------------------------------
ORDER
Petitioner is the 9th respondent in the above
revision. He has filed the present petition to review the
order passed by this court disposing the revision on
12/07/2005, with a petition to condone delay of 1537 days
canvassing a case that he could not properly instruct his
counsel and hence the impugned order happened to be
passed in the revision. His brother, one of the legal heirs of
the declarent had filed the revision, but he too on account of
financial stringency was missing for quite some time and so
much so, there was no effective prosecution of the revision
is the case of the review petition for seeking condonation of
delay and also for reviewing the order already passed by this
court.
2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
I find no merit in the petition. Petitioner is only a respondent
in the revision who had submitted to the order passed by the
Land Board. Challenge against the order was raised by his
R.P.No.1069 OF 2009 IN
C.R.P NO.1830/1994 Page numbers
brother, the petitioner, another legal heir of the declarent.
He has also now submitted to the order. The reason
canvassed by the petitioner for condonation of delay and
also for reviewing the order which had been passed on
merits by this court on the face of it show that it was after
hearing the counsel on both sides. That order is not liable to
be interfered with under law. Review petition lacks merit,
and it is dismissed.
Sd/-
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,
JUDGE
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
vdv