IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 166 of 2009()
1. VELIKKAKATH ASSU, S/O.KUNHAMI,
... Petitioner
2. VELIKKAKATH KACHU, D/O.KUNHAMI,
3. V.K.MAMMOOTTY, S/O.AASYA, AGED 57 YEARS,
4. VELIKKAKATH PATHOOTTY, D/O.SAINA,
Vs
1. PARIYAT SUHARA, D/O.MAMOO,
... Respondent
2. P.V.AYISHA, D/O.ABBOBACKER,
3. P.V.SUHARA, D/O.ABOOBACKER,
4. P.V.RASIA, D/O.ABOOBACKER,
5. FATHIMA, W/O.PARIYAT MAHAMOOD,
6. FILSHAD, S/O.PARIYAT MAHAMOOD,
7. NASRIYA, D/O.PARIYAT MAHAMOD,
8. JAMEELA K.,W/O.V.K.ALI,AGED 48 YEARS,
9. JASEELA,D/O.V.K.ALI,AGED 28YEARS,
10. NABEESA, D/O.V.K.ALI, AGED 22 YEARS,
11. NOUSHAD, S/O.V.K.ALI, AGED 21 YEARS,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.SURENDRAN
For Respondent :SRI.C.KHALID
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :/ /
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
----------------------------------
C.R.P.No.166 of 2009()
-------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of April, 2010
O R D E R
Learned counsel for the revision petitioner seeks permission to
withdraw the revision without prejudice to challenge the preliminary
decree passed in the suit by way of an appeal as provided by law.
The learned counsel also sought for granting of exemption of the
period during which the review petition was prosecuted before the
court below, and also the order passed thereof in the present
revision, invoking Section 14 of the Limitation Act. It is for the court
before which the appeal, if any, presented, that has to consider the
entitlement of the revision petitioner to claim the exemption
covered by Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Still I hold that there is
nothing to indicate that the petitioner was not bonafide prosecuting
the review petition and also the challenge against the orders passed
in such petition before this court in the present revision. With the
observations as made above, the revision is dismissed as withdrawn.
Hand over a copy of the order to the counsel.
Sd/-
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
JUDGE
//TRUE COPY//
vdv
P.A TO JUDGE