The present miscellaneous petition, M.P.No.1 of 2012 is filed to condone the delay of 3405 days in filing the above review petition.
2. This Court, by the order dated 28.06.2002, dismissed the civil revision petition filed by the petitioners. The petitioners filed SLP in C.C.No.9041 of 2002 before the Hon'ble Apex Court. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners sought permission to withdraw the SLP to approach this Court for an appropriate relief. The Hon'ble Apex Court granted permission and the said SLP was dismissed on 13.01.2003. The petitioner has filed the Review Petition SR.75589 in the year 2011 along with the petition to condone the delay of 3405 days in filing the review petition.
3. According to the petitioners, his counsel in Hon'ble Supreme Court did not properly inform the lower Court Advocate, the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The copy of the order sent by the Hon'ble Supreme Court Advocate did not reach the lower Court Advocate. Only at the time of trial, the petitioners obtained the Xerox copy of the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and found that liberty was given while dismissing the SLP to approach this Court for appropriate relief. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the length of delay is immaterial when the petitioners have strong arguable case and relied on the following judgments:
(i) 2008 (1) CTC 785 in the case of Ravi Enterprises, rep by its partner, T.S.Ravi, No.892, T.H.Road, Thiruvottiyur, Chennai 600 019 and others V. Indian Bank, Thiruvottiyuur Branch, T.H.Road, Thiruvottiyur, Chennai 600 019 and others.
(ii) 1995 (II) CTC 164 in the case of Kandasamy V. Rathinambal and five others.
(iii) 2017 (8) SCALE in the case of K.Subbarayudu and others V. The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition)
(iv) AIR 2011 SC 977 in the case of Union of India V. Giani and submitted that the delay in filing the review petition is only due to the communication gap and the issue in respect of obtaining the copy of the order.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the materials available on record.
5. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that if there is arguable case, the delay even though is enormous, must be condoned. I have gone through the order of this Court dated 28.06.2002 made in C.R.P(PD).No.27443 of 2001 and grounds in Review Application. This Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition on the ground that the petitioners did not furnish the date of sale in favour of the respondents 2 to 7 and when they took possession of the properties. It is not the case of the petitioners that they furnished the dates of sale and when the respondents 2 to 17 took possession and that this Court erred in holding that petitioners failed to furnish the details. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that a list of dates of sale and names of vendors have been furnished along with the application for amendment. No such list has been produced in the typed set of papers along with affidavit filed in this Court. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners have raised grounds in Review Applications on merits. The petitioners are not entitled to reargue the issue or raise new grounds. Having failed to point out any error in the order dated 28.06.2002, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that there is a strong arguable case is without merits.
6. It is well settled that the length of delay is not a criteria to decide the issue. The intention of the party must be bonafide and should not be malafide. The reason given by the petitioners for condoning the delay of 3405 days is not sufficient and valid reason for condoning the delay. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners have not made out any strong arguable case. Hence, the judgments relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
7. In view of the above conclusion, M.P.No.1/2012 is dismissed. Consequently, connected Review Application SR.75589 of 2011 is rejected. No costs.
12.09.2017 Index: Yes/No gsa V.M.VELUMANI,J.
gsa Review Application SR75589 of 2011 in C.R.P(PD).No.2473 of 2001 and M.P.No.1 of 2012 in Review Application No.SR75589 of 2011 12.09.2017