TMI Blog2009 (1) TMI 548X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dant) - we now direct the office to list the present matter for admission along with I.A. No. 1 of 2008 on 16-2-2009. - 477 of 2009 S.L.P.(C)..../2008 (CC 15251-15252/2008) - - - Dated:- 13-1-2009 - S.H. Kapadia and H.L. Dattu, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri S. Gurukrishna Kumar and S.R. Setia, Advocates, for the Appellant. Shri Shyam Diwan, Sr. Advocate (A.C.), for the Respondent. [Order]. The present special leave petition has been filed by the petitioner (original plaintiff) against the judgment and final Order dated 18-9-2006 passed by the Madras High Court in CRP (NPD) No. 896/06. Subsequent to the passing of the impugned Order dated 18-9-2006 in CRP No. 896/06, the petitioner herein filed Review Application No. 85/07 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sufficient cause at all for purposes of Section 5 of the limitation Act, 1963. For this purpose we requested Shri Shyam Diwan, learned senior counsel, to assist us in answering the query raised hereinabove. 3. On the question as to whether the prosecution of a Review Application would be a sufficient cause for not filing the special leave petition in time for the purposes of Section 5 of the limitation Act, 1963 we are of the view that there is a dichotomy between the appellate jurisdiction of this Court and discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution (See: Kunhayammed and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr. reported in [(2000) 6 SCC 359]. Reading the said judgment, it also becomes clear that filing of Review Petition i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficient cause can be the guiding factor/guideline. Therefore, it cannot be stated as a proposition per se that the prosecution of Review Proceedings would not be a sufficient cause at all for purposes of Section 5 of the limitation Act, 1963. 5. In the present case, as stated above, what is challenged is the main judgment and Order dated 18-9-2006. As stated above, I.A. No. 1 of 2008 is for condonation of delay in filing the special leave petition. It is important to note that the Review Application was filed within time in April, 2007, therefore, it was duly numbered. The High Court re-examined the entire case after issuing notice to the respondent herein (defendant). 6. In view of what is stated above, we now direct the office to li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
