Review jurisdiction is limited to correcting self-evident errors in prior rulings, while condonation of delay requires a reasonable explanation for every day of delay. Condoning delays without sufficient grounds violates procedural justice.

ORDER

Muralee Krishna, J.

Respondents 1 and 2 in W.A. No. 2323 of 2025 filed this review petition under Order XLVII Rule 1, read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908, (‘CPC’, for short), pleading that there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record in the order dated 11.11.2025 passed by this Court in C.M. Application No.1 of 2025, which was an application filed by the 1^st respondent herein-appellant to condone the delay of 357 days in filing the appeal.

2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, and the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent.

3. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Apex Court condemned the growing tendency of litigants in throwing the entire blame on the head of the advocate and thereby disowning him at any time and seeking relief. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the affidavit of the appellant bank by itself would indicate that the bank was not diligent in prosecuting the case. This Court, while rendering the impugned order, failed to consider the precedents relied on by the review petitioners that each date of delay must be explained and such explanation must be reasonable and not an excuse. In support of his arguments the learned Senior Counsel relied on the judgments of the Apex Court inState of Nagaland v. Toulvi Kibami [ (2003) 8 SCC 671 ] Nitin Mahadeo Jawale v. Bhaskar Mahadeo Mutke [2024 (7) KHC SN 19],Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy [(2013) 12 SCC 649] and that of this Court inRafeek v. Kamarudeen [ 2021 (4) KHC 34 ], wherein one among us [Anil K. Narendran, J.] is a party, and the judgment dated 28.10.2025 of another Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 1936 of 2023.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent Bank vehemently argued that there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned order. By inviting our attention to paragraph 6 of the affidavit filed by the 1^st respondent-appellant, the learned counsel submitted that the order dated 29.11.2024 passed in R.P. No.1265 of 2024 was not produced before Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal by the review petitioners, which resulted in the order dated 28.07.2025 directing the review petitioners to deposit an amount of Rs.39,43,500.53/- being 40% of the due amount of debt. As far as the manner in which a delay petition has to be considered is concerned, the learned counsel relied on the judgments of the Apex Court inN. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [ (1998) 7 SCC 123 ],M. K. Prasad v. P. Arumugam [ (2001) 6 SCC 176 ], Ram Nath SAO Alias Ram Nath Sahu and Others v. Gobardhan SAO and Others [ (2002) 3 SCC 195 ] andHimalayan Co-operative Group Housing Society v. Balwan Singh [(2015) 7 SCC 373]. The learned counsel further relied on the judgment of the Apex Court inDirector of Elementary Education, Odisha v. Pramod Kumar Sahoo [ (2019) 10 SCC 674 ], in support of his arguments.

5. As mentioned above, W.A.No.2323 of 2025 is filed by the 1^st respondent herein with a delay of 357 days, for the condonation of which he filed C.M.Application No.1 of 2025. In order to understand the reasoning given by this court to allow that delay condonation application, or in other words, to understand the grounds stated by the petitioners to invoke the review jurisdiction of this Court to set right the said order, which according to them is by correcting the mistake or er