A petition's delay cannot be condoned without proper justification or No Objection Certificate from previous counsel, adhering to Supreme Court precedents.

O R D E R

The Regular Second Appeal was dismissed on

05.02.2019 by this Court. The appellant has come with the Review Petition with an application to condone the delay of 577 days in filing the Review Petition. The reasons stated by the petitioner is that since the Second Appeal was dismissed before admission, the only remedy left to him was to approach the Honourable Supreme Court and since the litigation before the Honourable Supreme Court is expensive, he tried to arrange funds for the purpose which he could not do that since his wife was suffering from Rheumatoid Arthritis.

2. A Counter Affidavit has been filed by the respondent stating that the reasons disclosed in the application for Condonation of Delay does not constitute a sufficient cause for condoning the delay. That apart, it is further contented that going by the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. N. Raju Reddiar [ (1996) 4 SCC 551 ], the change of Vakalath, does not furnish any valid ground.

3. I have heard Shri. George Varghese (Perumpallikuttiyil), learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Smt. Clara Sherin Francis, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

4. On considering the submissions raised across the Bar, this Court finds there are two glaring infirmities in the Review Petition.

(a) The Review Petition is admittedly filed through another counsel without obtaining any No Objection Certificate from the earlier counsel.

(b) The delay is not properly explained.

5. The more glaring defect this Court could notice is that the Review Petition is attempted to be filed without obtaining a No Objection Certificate from the earlier counsel which has been deprecated by the Honourable Supreme Court. However, the learned counsel for the Review Petitioner submitted that the earlier counsel was not prepared to file the Review Petition and only in such circumstances that he had changed the counsel.

6. Even assuming that the earlier counsel was not prepared to file the Review Petition, it was imperative on the part of the Review Petitioner to have obtained the No Objection Certificate. And, in the absence of the same, by this Court finds that the embargo laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Another (Supra), will squarely apply to the present case.

7. That apart, this Court also finds that except for a vague statement that his wife was suffering from Rheumatoid Arthritis, no explanation is caused for the delay of 577 days. Therefore, this Court is of the view that on both counts, the Review Petition cannot be entertained. Accordingly, the delay in filing the Review Petition is not liable to be condoned. In the result, the C.M. Application is dismissed and consequently, the Review Petition is also dismissed.

Sd/-