IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM TH FRIDAY, THE 14 DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1946 RP NO. 307 OF 2025 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED IN RSA NO.642 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/ APPELLANT: SIVASANKARAN @SIVASANKARAN NAIR, AGED 71 YEARS, S/O THEKKEVILAKKATHALA DEVAKI AMMA,VARAVOOR VILLAGE & DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN – 680582.

BY ADVS.

K.T.BOSCO P.DARLY JOHN RESPONDENT(S)/ RESPONDENT:

RADHA, AGED 67 YEARS, D/O THEKKEVILAKKATHALA DEVAKI AMMA, IRUNILAMKODE DESOM,MULLURKKARA VILLAGE,THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR., PIN – 680582.

BY ADV.

SRI.E.VIJIN KARTHIK THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

14.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

1. This Review Petition is filed to review the judgment passed by this Court, which dismissed the Regular Second Appeal consequent to the dismissal of C.M.Appl. No.1 of 2024. C.M.Appl. No.1 of 2024 was filed to condone a delay of 650 days.

2. Review Petition is filed along with Annexure A1 Adhaar Card of the Petitioner and Exts.A2 to A11, medical records to substantiate that the appellant had physical incapability on medical grounds to approach the counsel to instruct the filing of the appeal within the limitation period. It is also contended that the age of the appellant was understood by this Court as 59 based on the age shown in the first appeal filed in the year 2014, whereas he is actually 71 years old. To substantiate his age, the appellant has also produced his Aadhaar card Annexure A1.

3. I heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the medical records produced as Annexures A2 to A11 would prove that the appellant had physical incapacity on medical reasons, which prevented him from approaching the counsel to instruct the filing of the appeal within the limitation time. The counsel invited my attention to each and every document produced along with the Review Petition.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that no sufficient cause is made out, even in the Review Petition, for condoning the inordinate delay. The material details as to his physical incapacity are not even pleaded and the records produced are neither relevant nor material for condoning the delay.

6. I have considered the rival contentions.

7. It is seen from Annexure A1 the Aadhaar Card, that the appellant is 71 years old. This Court entered a finding that the appellant is aged 59 years, relying on the affidavit filed by the appellant himself in C.M. Appl. No. 1 of 2024. The said mistake occurred only because the appellant himself showed the wrong date in the Affidavit. This Court committed the mistake not relying on the appeal of the year 2014. The appellant's age was only a secondary factor while considering the application to condone the delay.

8. While passing the impugned judgment, this Court considered whether the appellant had sufficient cause for condoning the delay. In the original affidavit filed by the appellant in support of C.M. Appl. No. 1 of 2024, the appellant had not stated the material details regarding the treatment, the duration of the treatment and as to how it prevented him from approaching the counsel for filing the appeal within time. In the Review Petition, the appellant has made averments with reference to Annexure A2 to A11. First of all, the appellant has not explained why these records were not produced along with C.M. Appl. No. 1 of 2024. Only if the appellant has satisfactorily explained as to why these records were not produced along with the C.M.Appl, this Court needs to consider the same while considering the Review Petition.

9. Even assuming that the appellant had sufficient cause for not producing them earlier. I am of the view that the documents now produced do not show that the appellant had any physical incapacity on medical groun