Kerala High Court
Joshy Varghese vs Lysamma Thomas on 3 February, 2021
RP.No.431/2020 in Mat.A No.1189/2018
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 14TH
MAGHA,1942
RP.No.431 OF 2020 IN Mat.Appeal. 1189/2018
AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A. 1/2020 IN Mat.Appeal 1189/2018
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/S:
1 JOSHY VARGHESE,
S/O. VARGHESE, RESIDING AT ODETTIL HOUSE,
ERAVINELLUR P.O., PUTHUPALLY VILLAGE,
KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY THE
P.A. HOLDER WILSON SEBASTIAN, S/O. SEBASTIAN,
AGED 66 YEARS, KOMBANAL HOUSE, NEDIYANGA
KARA, NEDIYANGA VILLAGE, CHEMPANTHOTTY P.O.,
THALIPARAMPU TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT-670631.
2 JULLE JOSHY,
W/O. JOSHY VARGHESE, RESIDING AT ODETTIL
HOUSE, ERAVINELLUR P.O., PUTHUPALLY VILLAGE,
KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY THE
P.A. HOLDER WILSON SEBASTIAN, S/O. SEBASTIAN,
AGED 66 YEARS, KOMBANAL HOUSE, NEDIYANGA
KARA, NEDIYANGA VILLAGE, CHEMPANTHOTTY P.O.,
THALIPARAMPU TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT-670631.
BY ADV. SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 LYSAMMA THOMAS,
AGED 49 YEARS, D/O. VARGHESE, RESIDING AT
PAREKULATH HOUSE, MUTTAR KARA, KUTTANADU
TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT THEKKEL HOUSE,
KURIANADU P.O., MONIPPALLY, KOTTAYAM-686636.
RP.No.431/2020 in Mat.A No.1189/2018
2
2 THOMAS KURIAN,
AGED 51 YEARS, S/O. KURIAN, RESIDING AT
THEKKEL HOUSE, KURIANADU P.O., MONIPPALLY,
KOTTAYAM-686636.
3 BASIL THOMAS,
AGED 23 YEARS, S/O. THOMAS KURIAN, RESIDING
AT THEKKEL HOUSE, KURIANADU P.O., MONIPPALLY,
KOTTAYAM-686636.
BY ADV.SMT.CHINCY GOPAKUMAR
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
03.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
RP.No.431/2020 in Mat.A No.1189/2018
3
ORDER
Dated this the 3rd day of February 2021
C.S.Dias, J.
The review petition is filed to review the order
dated 24.2.2020 in I.A No.1 of 2020 in Mat.A
No.1189/2018 and to enlarge the time period for
payment of costs as ordered in C.M.Appli.No.1/2018.
2. The review petitioners were the appellants
and the respondents herein were the respondents in
the Mat.Appeal.
3. The review petitioners filed Mat.A
No.1189/2018 challenging the common judgment
dated 30.11.2015 in O.P. No.124/2013 of the Family
Court, Pala. Along with the appeal, the review
petitioners had filed C.M.Appli. No.1/2018 to condone
the delay of 1031 days in filing the appeal. It was
the case of the review petitioners in the affidavit in
RP.No.431/2020 in Mat.A No.1189/2018
support of the application that they were employed
in Italy and could not give proper directions to the
Power of Attorney Holder and therefore, the appeal
could not be filed in time.
4. C.M.Appln.1 of 2018 was vehemently
opposed by the respondents, who filed a detailed
counter affidavit and contended that there was
willful laches and negligence on the part of the
review petitioners in preferring the appeal within
the stipulated statutory time period.
5. This Court by its order dated 18.6.2019
allowed C.M.Applin No.1/2018, on the ground that
substantial justice deserves to be preferred rather
than technical considerations. This Court condoned
the inordinate delay of 1031 days by directing the
review petitioners to pay an amount of Rs.,25,000/- as
costs to the 1st respondent or her counsel appearing
before this Court.
6. The review petitioners did not pay the costs
RP.No.431/2020 in Mat.A No.1189/2018
within the stipulated time period of one month.
7. After a lapse of six months, the review
petitioners filed I.A No.1/2020, seeking enlargement
of time to pay the costs of Rs.25,000/-.
8. This Court by order dated 24.2.2020,
finding that the review petitioners had not complied
with the self working order dated 18.06.2019 and
that there was a long lapse of time to prefer the
application for enlargement of time, dismissed the
application.
9. Assailing the said order in I.A No.1/2020,
the review petition is filed.
10. Heard Sri.Manu Ramachandran, the learned
counsel appearing for the review petitioners and
Smt.Chincy Gopakumar, the learned appearing for
the respondents.
11. The question that arises for consideration in
this review petition is whether there is any error
apparent on the face of record to review the order in
RP.No.431/2020 in Mat.A No.1189/2018
I.A No.1/2020.
12. The review petitioners had filed the
Mat.Appeal with an application to condone the
inordinate delay of 1031 days in filing the appeal.
This court took a lenient view in the matter and
allowed the application on condition that the review
petitioners pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- as costs, in
order to tide over the prejudice and hardship that has
been caused to the respondents and to render
substantial justice.
13. The review petitioners miserably failed to
comply with the said order. After a lapse of more
than six months, they filed an application seeking
enlargement of the time for payment of costs.
14. On finding that there was willful laches and
deliberate negligence on the part of the review
petitioners, this Court dismissed the application. 15.
15. Now the review petitioners are in review,
inter alia, contending that the costs could not be paid
RP.No.431/2020 in Mat.A No.1189/2018
as the review petitioners are employed abroad; that
the 1st review petitioner's phone had gone missing;
that he lost contact with his counsel and that the
review petitioners were effected by the Novel
Corona Virus. Hence, they could not pay the costs
within the time.
16. It is rudimentary that, to review an order
there should be an error apparent on the face of
record. Undisputedly, the order in C.M.Applin
1/2018 was a self working one, whereby, this Court
had shown indulgence and took a liberal view in
favour of the review petitioners, which they did not
comply. The allegation regarding the Covid-19
pandemic effecting the review petitioners is
baseless as the order in C.M.Appln. 1/2018 was
passed on 18.6.2019, that is much prior to the
outbreak of the pandemic. This Court dismissed I.A
No.1/2020 finding no bona fides on the part of the
review petitioners. We do not find any error apparent
RP.No.431/2020 in Mat.A No.1189/2018
on the face of record warranting the invocation of
the review jurisdiction of this Court. The review
petition is devoid of any merits and is hence
dismissed.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
JUDGE
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS
ma/4.2.2021
JUDGE
/True copy
