Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

STATE OF KERALA versus AMMINI, W/O. GEORGE, PLAKKIL HOUSE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


STATE OF KERALA v. AMMINI, W/O. GEORGE, PLAKKIL HOUSE - RP No. 397 of 2006 [2007] RD-KL 209 (3 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RP No. 397 of 2006()

1. STATE OF KERALA.
... Petitioner

Vs

1. AMMINI, W/O. GEORGE, PLAKKIL HOUSE,
... Respondent

For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.K.DENESAN The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

Dated :03/01/2007

O R D E R

K.K.DENESAN & V.RAMKUMAR, JJ.

R.P. NO: 397 OF 2006 IN L.A.A.NO:237 OF 2004 Dated this the 3rd January, 2007.

O R D E R

Denesan, J.

The review petitioner is the respondent in L.A.A. 237/2004. The prayer in the C.M. Application was to condone the delay of 2669 days in filing the appeal.

2. As per the order sought to be reviewed, the delay was condoned. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent in the L.A.A has filed this review petition. It is contended that the delay was condoned without affording an opportunity to the review petitioner to file objections. It is also contended that for condoning the inordinate delay no satisfactory explanation was furnished by the applicant. The above contention is raised on the ground that the affidavit filed by the respondent is evasive and not supported by reliable materials to establish that she was physically indisposed for such a long period.

3. We have heard counsel appearing for the respondent. He has made submissions in support of the order passed in the C.M. Application condoning the delay.

4. From the proceedings before us, it is evident that the C.M.Application was not posted to afford an opportunity R.P.397/2006 in L.A.A.237/2004 2 to the respondent/review petitioner to file counter affidavit or objection. The C.M.Application was allowed on the first posting itself. In our opinion this is a valid ground to review the order passed on 10.3.2006 in the C.M.Application. Accordingly the order sought to be reviewed is set aside and the review petition is allowed. Post the C.M.Application for the counter affidavit of the State after one week. K.K.DENESAN Judge V. RAMKUMAR Judge jj

K.K.DENESAN & V. RAMKUMAR, JJ.

M.F.A.NO:

JUDGMENT

Dated:


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.