AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sathish Ninan, J
This review petition accompanied by the application to condone the delay is at the instance of the second defendant in the suit who was the first respondent in the RFA.
The appeal was disposed of by this Court as per judgment dated 27.09.2019. The petitioner contends that he was not aware of the pendency of the appeal and its disposal as he was not served with notice in the appeal. It was only in July, 2022, on receipt of notice in the execution proceedings, that he got knowledge about the appeal and its disposal. Immediately thereafter certified copy of the judgment was applied for and obtained, and the review is filed, it is stated.
A perusal of the court records indicates that, the appeal was admitted on 15.07.2010 and notice to the respondents was ordered. The notice on the review petitioner-first respondent in the appeal was served on him. The proceedings indicate that, in spite of the notice he chose not to appear. He cannot be now heard to say that he was not aware of the pendency of the appeal or its disposal. Therefore, the explanation offered for the delay cannot be accepted.
On the review petition the learned counsel for the review petitioner would argue that, the evidence of PW3 was omitted to be considered by this Court while passing the impugned judgment. However, a reading of paragraph 8 of the judgment shows that the evidence of PW3 was specifically adverted and was considered in the light of Exts.A3 and A4 documents marked in the suit. Suffice to notice that, there is no error apparent warranting entertaining of the review petition.
The application for condonation of delay and the review petition are thus dismissed.