← Library
High Court of KeralaRP/872/2014dismissed

Prakash Kamapalan v. C.Radhamony

2015-01-29Honourable Mr.Justice C.K.Abdul Rehim,Honourable Mr.Justice K.T.Sankaran5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/9TH MAGHA, 1936 RP.No. 872 of 2014 () IN Mat.Appeal.485/2012 ---------------------------------------------- Mat.Appeal 485/2012 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 02-08-2012 REVIEW PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS:

---------------------------------------

1. PRAKASH KAMAPALAN, AGED 51 YEARS S/O.LATE KAMAPALAN, P.K.BHAVAN, VALATHUGALCHERRY ERAVIPURAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, KERALA STATE INDIA NOW RESIDING AT 20-WELLINGTON ROAD, CROYDON CRO 2SH, LONDON U.K.

REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SURENDRA BABU S/O.GANGADHARAN, AGED 59 YEARS, KRISHNA KRIPA, KALAKKODU P.O.

POOTHAKULAM, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT KERALA STATE, INDIA-691302.

2. SHEELA PRAKASH, AGED 47 YEARS W/O.PRAKASH KAMAPALAN, MANAKKARA, VALATHUNGALCHERRY ERAVIPURAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, KERALA STATE INDIA NOW RESIDING AT 20-WILLINGTON ROAD, CROYDON CRO 2SH, LONDON U.K.

REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SURENDRA BABU S/O.GANGADHARAN, AGED 59 YEARS, KRISHNA KRIPA, KALAKKODU P.O.

POOTHAKULAM, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT KERALA STATE, INDIA-691302.

BY ADVS.SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM SMT.NIMMY JOHNSON RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

--------------------- C.RADHAMANY D/O.CHELLAPPAN, C.S.MANDIRAM, MAYYANAD CHERRY

RP.No. 872 of 2014 MAYYANAD VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT 114 PEMDERON ROAD, WEST CROYDON, SURREY LONDON U.K. REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SMT.J.SOBHANA, AGED 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHARUVILAVEEDU (NALANDA), MYLAKKAD P.O. THAZHUTHALA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691571.

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: smv

K.T. SANKARAN & C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ.

-------------------------------------------------------- C.M. Application No.3310 of 2014 & R.P.No. 872 of 2014 in Mat.Appeal No.485 of 2012 --------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of January, 2015

O R D E R

K.T.Sankaran, J.

The Review Petition is filed seeking to review the judgment dated 2nd August, 2012. There is a delay of 797 days in filing the review petition and it is sought to be condoned by filing C.M.Application No.3310 of 2014. The Mat.Appeal was filed against the order passed by the Family Court dismissing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree. There was a delay of more than 3 years in filing the application. The Family Court dismissed the application and it was confirmed in appeal.

2. The ground raised for reviewing the judgment passed by this Court is that in view of the observation made in the last paragraph of the judgment, the petitioners may be precluded from filing the application to set aside the ex

CMA.3310 of 2014 & R.P.No.872 of 2014 parte decree. It is submitted that the Family Court dismissed the application for setting aside the ex parte decree not only on the ground of delay but also on the ground that the Power of Attorney executed by the present review petitioners was not a proper Power of Attorney. It is submitted that in view of that finding, the petitioners intend to file a proper application. The apprehension of the petitioners is that in view of the observations in the judgment in the Mat. Appeal, a proper application by the petitioners themselves would be barred.

3. When a judgment is rendered, it is not for the court which rendered the judgment to interpret about its effect in subsequent proceeding. It is for the court which deals with any subsequent proceeding to consider the effect of the judgment on the maintainability of the second application. We do not think that there is any merit in the Review Petition. Therefore, we do not think it proper to issue

CMA.3310 of 2014 & R.P.No.872 of 2014 notice on the application for condonation of delay as well. The application for condonation of delay is accordingly dismissed and the Review Petition is also dismissed. Sd/- K.T. SANKARAN , JUDGE Sd/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE //true copy// P.A to Judge smv