Sree Ramakrishnan vs Balakrishnan Nair

Kerala High Court

Sree Ramakrishnan vs Balakrishnan Nair on 21 May, 2024

Author: P.Somarajan

Bench: P.Somarajan

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
      TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946
                         RP NO. 693 OF 2019

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.01.2005 IN AS 57/1996 OF
                     SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.11.1995 IN OS 714/1989 OF
                    MUNSIFF COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA

  AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.02.2019 IN RSA NO.344 OF 2005 OF
                       HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/THIRD ADDITIONAL APPELLANT:

            SREE RAMAKRISHNAN
            AGED 62, S/O. P.V. BHASKARAN NAIR,
            KRISHNA SREE, KUREEKKAD P.O,
            THIRUVANKULAM,682305.

            BY ADVS.
            ANILA UMESH
            SMT.P.J.RAZIA BEEVI



RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

            BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
            S/O. PARAMESWARA PILLAI,
            PADASSERRY PUTHENPURAYIL,
            KARIMATTOM KARA, ENANALLOOR VILLAGE,
            MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK.

            BY ADVS.
            SRI.P.B.MOHANKUMAR
            SMT.N.ANJALI




     THIS   REVIEW   PETITION    HAVING     COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
21.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
  RP NO.693/2019 in RSA No.344/2005

                                   2



                                ORDER

The present review petition is illustrative of what is actually going on in our system. Atlest in some cases, it has become the usual practice to adopt all sorts of delaying tactics one after another.

The litigation started in the year 1989 in the form of a suit for partition. It is decreed by the trial court. A first appeal was preferred in the year 1996, which was also ended in dismissal. A second appeal was preferred in the year 2005, wherein this Court found that there is no substantial question of law involved in the case and as such, dismissed the appeal on 26.02.2019. Thereon, the 3rd additional appellant came up with the present review with an application to condone a delay of 99 days. The delay condonation application was allowed by RP NO.693/2019 in RSA No.344/2005 3 this Court without noticing the oldage and nature of the case involved. In fact, the review was filed by producing a certified copy of the sale deed of the neighbouring property. The review was dragged for a long period of more than five years, and no attempt was made by the review petitioner to take up the matter emergently or to get a posting date. This would tell upon what is behind it. This kind of practice cannot be tolerated and shall not be permitted to continue. Now thirty five years already elapsed in a suit for partition. There is no sufficient reason, much less any reason to allow the review petition and as such, the review petition will stand dismissed.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE SPV RP NO.693/2019 in RSA No.344/2005 4 APPENDIX OF RP 693/2019 PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN R.S.A NO.344/2005 DATED 26.02.2019.

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.601/1995 OF MUVATTUPUZHA S.R.O. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE