AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.—This application for review is against an order by which an application for condonation of delay of 850 days was allowed; on which, notice was issued by this Court on 22.8.2012 through special messenger, fixing the date of appearance as 3.9.2012. The endorsement of the office shows that the notice was served before 25.8.2012. When the matter came up on 3.9.2012, there was no appearance for the respondents. It was thus that the application for condonation of delay was allowed. We see that the appeal has hence been admitted and the balance court fee due after admission has been remitted. An interim order has also been granted in favour of the appellants.
Though the respondents in this appeal who are the review petitioners did not appear on 3.9.2012, the date fixed for hearing of the appeal, they had appeared on the next day, in effect, seeking opportunity to explain why the delay ought not to have been condoned. In the fitness of things, we think that they are entitled to an opportunity of hearing on C.M. Application 608/12. For this reason, we are of the view that there is error apparent on the face of the record, as appropriate opportunity is not seen extended to the review petitioners as regards hearing on the C.M. application.
For the aforesaid reasons, this review petition is allowed. Order dated 3.9.2012 is recalled, however preserving in tact the order admitting the RFA and the interim orders in that appeal. Post the C.M. application No. 608/12 for further consideration on 18.10.2012.