IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 100 of 2010()
1. P.C.GEORGE, PARAVARAKATHU HOUSE,
... Petitioner
2. P.C.JOSEPH, -DO- -DO-
3. P.C.DAVIS, -DO- -DO-
4. THANKAMMA JOSEPH, MANARKATTU HOUSE,
5. MARIAKUTTY CHACKO, PARAVARAKATHU HOUSE,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE CUSTODIAN OF VESTED FORESTS AND
3. P.C.JACOB, PARAVARAKATHU HOUSE,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :18/02/2010
O R D E R
A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
C.M.Appln.No.249 of 2010 &
R.P.No.100/2010 in M.F.A.No.369/1998
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 18th day of February, 2010
ORDER
Basheer, J.
This Miscellaneous application has been filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act seeking to condone the delay of 2954 days in filing the
review petition.
2. The petitioner is the third appellant in M.F.A.No.369/1997
which was disposed of way back on July 17,2001. The said judgment in
MFA is sought to be reviewed in the review petition.
3. It is averred in the affidavit filed in support of the application
for condonation of delay that after receipt of Annexure 1 order dated
February 14, 2006 passed by the Taluk Land Board, Mannarkkad ,
petitioner had contacted his counsel to decide further course of action.
After perusal of the judgment in the M.F.A. and the order passed by the
Taluk Land Board, it was decided to file a review petition.
4. However, according to the petitioner, he was not keeping well
and had been undergoing treatment. He has pressed into service a medical
certificate dated December 4, 2009 which states that petitioner “is a case of
RP.No.100/2010 2
chronic pancreatitis with pancreatic diabetes with diabetic neuropathy,
nephropathy and retinopathy”. It is further stated that the petitioner needs
regular medications and periodic investigations.
5. The Medical Certificate will not give any clue as to whether the
petitioner was in fact laid up or that he had been hospitalised at the relevant
point of time. There is not even a whisper with regard to the period during
which he had been hospitalised. Even assuming the Review Petition can be
entertained for any reason- we find none-petitioner has to necessarily give a
valid explanation for the delay. Annexure I order was passed in 2006.
Medical Certificate is dated December 4, 2009.
We have carefully perused the affidavit. We are not at all satisfied
with the so called explanation offered by the petitioner to condone the
inordinate delay of 2954 days in filing the Review Petition. Therefore, the
delay petition is dismissed. Consequently, the Review Petition is also
dismissed.
A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE
P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE
sv.
RP.No.100/2010 2