LexSASI (D) THROUGH LRS. · versus ARAVINDAKSHAN NARI AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.
.
SAS! (D) THROUGH LRS. ·
v.
.
.
.
. .
ARAVINDAKSHAN NARI AND OTHERS .•
(SLP (C) No.(CC4339) of2017)
MARCH 03, 2017
.
fDlPAKMISRAAND.
.
MOHAN M. SHAN'(ANAGOUDAR, JJ~)
· Delay/laches.- Review applications kept pendingfor span of
4 years - J?elayed disposal - Duty of courtllitig(lnt/counsel - Held:
·It is the duty of the Registry .of eve1y High Court· to place the matter
before t~e concerned Judge/Bench so that the. review application
ca11 be def{?t111ith in quitepromptitude-1tis the duty and obligation
of.a litigmit to file a review and not to keep it defective as if a
defective petition can be allowed to remain .on life support, as per
his desire -!tis the obligation of the counsel filing an application
for review to cure or remove t.he defects a.t the earliest - An adroit
·.method cannot be adopted io file an application for review and
wait till its re}eciion a11d, thereafte1; challenge the orders in the
special leave petition and take specio~1s and mercurial plea asserting
· thatdelay had occurred because the petitioner Was prosecuting the
application for review - Review jurisdiction.
·
·
Dismissing the speCial leave petition, the Court.
HELD: 1. An application for review lias to be disposed of
A
B
c
D
E
as expeditiously as possible. It is the duty of the Registry of every
High Court to place the matter before the concerned Judge/llench
F
so that the revi.ew application can be dealt with in quite
promptitude. If a notice is required to be is~ued to the. opposite .
· . party in the application for review, a specific date can be given on ·
. \vl1ich day the n1atter can be dealt with.in accordance with law.A
· reasonable period can be spent for disposal of the review, but
· definitely not follr years. The prescription of iimitation for filing . G
ail applicationfor review has its own sanctity. The Registry of the
High Courts has a duty to place the matter b~fol·e the Judge/
Bench with defects so that there can be prc•emptory orders for
removal of defects. There 11111y be absence of diligence ciu the ·
H
99
lOO
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 4 S.C.R.
A
part of the litigant, bu't the Regist1:y of the High- Courts is rcq uired
to be vigilant. Procrastination oflitigation in this manner is 1wthiug
but a subterfuge taken recom·se to in 11 manner that cau epitomize
"cleverness" in its conventional sense. [Paras 11, 12] [103-D-E,
G-H; 104-A-B)
B
Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v .. Govt. of A.P. AIR 1964
,SC 1372 : [1964) SCR 174; Parsion Devi v. Sumitri
Devi (1997) 8 SCC 715; [1997] 4 Suppl. SCR 470;
Meera Bhanja v. 'Nirmalti Ku11uiri Choudhury (1995) 1
SCC 170 : (1994) 5 Su11pl. SCR 503; Aribam Tuleshwar.
· Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma (1979) 4 SCC 389 -
C
relied on.
D
Case Law Reference
(19641 SCR 174
relied on
Para 7 .
..
f 1997] 4 Suppl. SCR 470
relied on
Para8
[1994] 5 Suppl. SCR 503
relied on ..
Para 8
,·,-]
(197~) 4 sec 389
relied on
Para8
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition
(C) .... CC No. 4339 of2017.
· From the Judgment and Order 'dated 09.03.2012 in R. S. A. No.
345 Of2012 and26.10.2016 in R. S.A. No. 345 of2012 in R.P. No. 886
of2017 oftjle High Court ofKerala at_Ernakulam.
"
;
.· ..
.
.·
.
.
..
, :Renjith B.-Marar, Ms. LakShnfrN. Kaimal, Laksh1neesh s:
Karnath, T.:K. Babu, Anubhav Anand Pandey, Advs. for the Petitioner,
F
~
1 The Judgment of the Cburt wa~ delivered by
I
•
i
I
i, ·
•
_ J
. , . DIPAl{ MISRA, J. I. In this special leave petiti9n, th~ challe}1ge
is to,the order dateq,9 th March, 2012, passed.by the learned Single·
Judge ,or°the}-Iigh:Cotirt ofKeraia at Ernakulam in ·R.S.A. No.34? of
2012 and the order dated 26th October, 2016, passed in Review Petition
G
~o.~86of201.2 .. "iil.
..,. .. ,i,
-
••
"'--
' : 2. Ordimirily;we would liave pa~sed a short order in the matter
dismissing the special leave petition which would have paved the'path
for extinction for the litigation, for it is devoid of any merit warranting
any interference but, an eloquent one, the circumstances impel us to
H
state something more.
SASI (D) THROUGH LRS. v. ARAVINDAKSHAN NARI ·AND
OTHERS [DlPAK MISRA, J.]
3. A Regular Second Appeal was preferred before the High Court
under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the judgment
and decree passed in Appeal Suit No, 149.of2008, which had given the
stamp of approval to the judgment and decree passed by the learned
Munsiff, AlappuExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.