Smt. Reshma vs Sri Syed Yaseen and Smt. Bibuan

B.S. Patil, J.—This review petition is filed seeking review of the judgment and decree/dated 07.12.2012 passed in R.S.A. No. 796/2010.

The review petitioner was the 1st respondent in the regular second appeal. Notice issued in the second appeal through R.P.A.D. was refused by the review petitioner and the same was returned with postal shara ''refused''. Having regard to the refusal of the notice, this Court has proceeded in the matter to hear and dispose of the case placing the respondent ex parte.

In the present review petition which is filed after delay of 304 days, petitioner is complaining that notice was indeed not served on her, but in collusion and illegally postal authority made such an endorsement on the postal cover showing that petitioner had refused to receive the notice. It is further stated that the petitioner learnt about passing of the judgment in the appeal only when 1st respondent herein started claiming openly in the village that he has obtained a judgment and decree in his favour from the High Court.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on the application filed seeking condonation of delay of 304 in Filing the review petition. In paragraph 3 of the affidavit filed in support of the application, the review petitioner contends that to her shock and surprise, 1st respondent herein was canvassing in the village stating that a judgment and decree had been passed in his favour and he had become absolute owner of the suit property. Immediately, thereafter, she approached the ''Appellate Court Advocate'' and enquired about the matter at the office of the High Court and learnt that the judgment and decree had been passed in favour of the 1st respondent herein.

No details are given as to when respondent No. 1 started announcing in the village about the judgment and decree obtained by him from the High Court. The name of the advocate, whom the petitioner had approached and the date when she had approached to make necessary enquiry are not stated. Explanation Whished for condonation of such long and inordinate delay, therefore, is devoid of any substance. The allegations made against the postal authority stating that they have acted in collusion with the 1st respondent is also not substantiated. Therefore, in such circumstances, long and inordinate delay of 304 days cannot be condoned. Even the assertion made stating that postal authorities have made endorsement of refusal on the postal cover colluding with the other respondents also cannot be accepted.

Hence, I.A. 1/2013 is dismissed. Consequently, the review petition is also dismissed.