The Divisional Manager vs Thomas V. Thomas
2021 Latest Caselaw 15398 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                   PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
     THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2021 / 31ST ASHADHA, 1943
              RP NO. 350 OF 2021 IN RFA NO.470 OF 2013
   AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.10.2020 IN RFA No.470 OF 2013


REVIEW PETITIONER/2ND RESPONDENT:

            THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
            I.O.C., PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-682016.
            BY ADVS.
               DR.THUSHARA JAMES
               SRI.M.S.AMAL DHARSAN


RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS & 1ST RESPONDENT

    1       THOMAS V. THOMAS,
            AGED 63 YEARS,
            S/O. THOMAS, VELOOR HOUSE, PUTHUKUNDAM MURI,
            KARTHIKAPPALLY VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK,
            ALAPPUZHA.
    2       ESTHER THOMAS,
            AGED 50 YEARS,
            W/O. THOMAS V. THOMAS, VELOOR HOUSE, PUTHUKUNDAM MURI,
            KARTHIKAPPALLY VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK,
            ALAPPUZHA.
    3       SUJITH THOMAS,
            AGED 49 YEARS,
            S/O. THOMAS, VELOOR HOUSE, PUTHUKUNDAM MURI,
            KARTHIKAPPALLY VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK,
            ALAPPUZHA.
    4       DEEPA SAJEEV,
            AGED 45 YEARS,
            W/O. SAJEEV, RESIDING AT KADAKKAL PEEDIKAYIL HOUSE, ALA
            VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK, POOMALA P.O.-688011.


              R1 TO R3 BY ADV.SRI.PAUL K. VARGHESE
              R4 BY ADV.SRI.B.PREMNATH



     THIS   REVIEW    PETITION     HAVING    COME   UP    FOR    ORDERS    ON
     22.07.2021,     THE   COURT    ON   THE   SAME      DAY    PASSED    THE
     FOLLOWING:
 R.P.No.350 of 2021
        in
R.F.A.No.470 of 2013
                                    2




                                 ORDER

Dated this the 22nd day of July,2021

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Review

Petitioner that as per the direction issued by this Court in

Judgment dated 16.10.2020 in RFA No.470 of 2013, he has

removed all structures from the plaint schedule properties

and thus the directions issued by the judgment have been

complied with.

2. It is submitted in the above circumstances that the

Review Petition is not intended to be prosecuted further. Since

the Review Petition was preferred with a delay of 120 days,

C.M.Appl.No.1 of 2021 seeking condonation of delay is filed

and is pending.

In the light of the submission made by the learned

counsel apprising this Court that the Review Petition is not

pressed, the C.M.Application is dismissed and consequently,

the Review Petition also is dismissed.

Sd/-

MARY JOSEPH JUDGE

MJL