Kerala High Court
Sivasankaran @Sivasankaran Nair vs Radha on 14 March, 2025
2025:KER:22092
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1946
RP NO. 307 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED IN RSA NO.642 OF 2024 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/ APPELLANT:
SIVASANKARAN @SIVASANKARAN NAIR,
AGED 71 YEARS,
S/O THEKKEVILAKKATHALA DEVAKI AMMA,VARAVOOR VILLAGE
& DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.,
PIN - 680582.
BY ADVS.
K.T.BOSCO
P.DARLY JOHN
RESPONDENT(S)/ RESPONDENT:
RADHA,
AGED 67 YEARS,
D/O THEKKEVILAKKATHALA DEVAKI AMMA, IRUNILAMKODE
DESOM,MULLURKKARA VILLAGE,THALAPPILLY TALUK,
THRISSUR., PIN - 680582.
BY ADV.
SRI.E.VIJIN KARTHIK
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:22092
RP NO. 307 OF 2025
2
ORDER
1. This Review Petition is filed to review the judgment
passed by this Court, which dismissed the Regular
Second Appeal consequent to the dismissal of C.M.Appl.
No.1 of 2024. C.M.Appl. No.1 of 2024 was filed to
condone a delay of 650 days.
2. Review Petition is filed along with Annexure A1 Adhaar
Card of the Petitioner and Exts.A2 to A11, medical
records to substantiate that the appellant had physical
incapability on medical grounds to approach the counsel
to instruct the filing of the appeal within the limitation
period. It is also contended that the age of the appellant
was understood by this Court as 59 based on the age
shown in the first appeal filed in the year 2014, whereas
he is actually 71 years old. To substantiate his age, the
appellant has also produced his Aadhaar card Annexure
A1.
2025:KER:22092
RP NO. 307 OF 2025
3. I heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned counsel for the respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the
medical records produced as Annexures A2 to A11 would
prove that the appellant had physical incapacity on
medical reasons, which prevented him from approaching
the counsel to instruct the filing of the appeal within the
limitation time. The counsel invited my attention to each
and every document produced along with the Review
Petition.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
respondent contended that no sufficient cause is made
out, even in the Review Petition, for condoning the
inordinate delay. The material details as to his physical
incapacity are not even pleaded and the records
produced are neither relevant nor material for condoning
the delay.
2025:KER:22092
RP NO. 307 OF 2025
6. I have considered the rival contentions.
7. It is seen from Annexure A1 the Aadhaar Card, that the
appellant is 71 years old. This Court entered a finding
that the appellant is aged 59 years, relying on the
affidavit filed by the appellant himself in C.M. Appl. No. 1
of 2024. The said mistake occurred only because the
appellant himself showed the wrong date in the Affidavit.
This Court committed the mistake not relying on the
appeal of the year 2014. The appellant's age was only a
secondary factor while considering the application to
condone the delay.
8. While passing the impugned judgment, this Court
considered whether the appellant had sufficient cause for
condoning the delay. In the original affidavit filed by the
appellant in support of C.M. Appl. No. 1 of 2024, the
appellant had not stated the material details regarding the
treatment, the duration of the treatment and as to how it
2025:KER:22092
RP NO. 307 OF 2025
prevented him from approaching the counsel for filing the
appeal within time. In the Review Petition, the appellant
has made averments with reference to Annexure A2 to
A11. First of all, the appellant has not explained why
these records were not produced along with C.M. Appl.
No. 1 of 2024. Only if the appellant has satisfactorily
explained as to why these records were not produced
along with the C.M.Appl, this Court needs to consider the
same while considering the Review Petition.
9. Even assuming that the appellant had sufficient cause
for not producing them earlier. I am of the view that the
documents now produced do not show that the appellant
had any physical incapacity on medical grounds to
condone delay. The delay from 21.10.2022 to 05.12.2024
after excluding the limitation period is to be explained by
the appellant. Annexure A2 shows that the appellant was
admitted to the hospital from 16.05.2019 to 21.05.2019
2025:KER:22092
RP NO. 307 OF 2025
for treatment of various ailments, including coronary
artery disease, diabetes, and memory disorder. It does
not relate to the relevant period. It only reveals certain
age-related diseases. Annexures A3 and A4 are
prescriptions given by an Ayurveda doctor and Annexures
A6, A7, and A8 are medical prescriptions given by
different doctors, which could not be relied on for
explaining the delay. Annexure A5 is a Discharge
Summary issued by West Fort Hospital, Thrissur, where
the appellant was admitted as an inpatient from
03.01.2024 to 05.01.2024. He was admitted only for two
days. The delay, to that extent, is explained. Annexure A9
is the OP Prescription, Annexure A10 is the Medicine
Statement, and Annexure A11 is the Discharge Summary.
It relates to the wife of the appellant.
10. All these documents reveal that the appellant and his wife
had several age-related ailments. However, they do not
2025:KER:22092
RP NO. 307 OF 2025
explain the physical condition of the appellant that
prevented him from approaching counsel within the
period of limitation. The period of inpatient treatment
revealed by the document is too short. No serious aliment
is pleaded or proved covering the length of long delay.
Even now, the appellant is having the ailments which are
disclosed in these documents. The appellant has no case
that he has recovered from the illness and thereafter filed
the Appeal. The specific ailment that prevented the
appellant from approaching this Court in time is not
disclosed in either the Review Petition or the documents.
11. Therefore, I do not find any ground or reason to entertain
this Review Petition. Accordingly, this Review petition is
dismissed.
Sd//-
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
JUDGE
mea
2025:KER:22092
RP NO. 307 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ADHAAR CARD NO. 8130 8662
9550 DATED 04.12.2012 OF THE PETITIONER
ISSUED BY UNIQUE IDENTIFICATION AUTHORITY OF
INDIA
Annexure A2 THE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY ISSUED BY
AMRITHA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND
RESEARCH CENTRE DATED NILL
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL PRESCRIPTION DATED
29.12.2022 ISSUED BY DR.SANTHOSH
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE PRESCRIPTION DATED
29.09.2023
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY DATED
05.01.2024 ISSUED BY WESTFORT HOSPITAL
THRISSUR
Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE PRESCRIPTION DATED
31.05.2024 ISSUED BY MAX CARE HOSPITAL,
WADAKKANCHERY
Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE PRESCRIPTION DATED NILL
ISSUED BY BY MAX CARE HOSPITAL, WADAKKANCHERY
Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF THE PRESCRIPTION DATED
08.11.2024 ISSUED BY THE SAKARA HOSPITAL
BANGALORE
Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF THE PRESCRIPTION DATED
23.05.2024 ISSUED BY AMALA HOSPITAL THRISSUR
Annexure A10 TRUE COPY OF THE IN-PATIENT BILL DATED
15.07.2024 ISSUED BY AMALA HOSPITAL THRISSUR
Annexure A11 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY DATED
06.08.2024 ISSUED BY THE AMRITA INSTITUTE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH CENTRE
