CourtKutchehry.com
Supreme CourtSingle Bench

N. Rajendran vs J. Padmavathi (died) through her Lr and Ors

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 16 December 2019 · Citation: (2019) 12 SC CK 0235

HON’BLE JUDGES
Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Review Petition (C) Nos. 2775, 2776 Of 2019 In Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 24057, 24058 Of 2011
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 334 words

Delay condoned in filing the Review Petitions.

The instant Review Petitions are filed seeking review of the orders dated 21.04.2016 and 23.07.2018. On 21.04.2016, this Court granted four weeks' time to the petitioner to cure the defects as pointed out by the Registry, failing which the Special Leave Petitions shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Court. Consequently, for noncompliance of the aforesaid order, the Special Leave Petitions stood dismissed on 19.05.2016. Subsequently, the petitioner by way of an application, prayed for restoration of the Special Leave Petitions. The said application vide order dated 23.07.2018 was dismissed. Hence, the present review petitions as mentioned supra.

The only lapse on the part of the petitioner was that he did not file appropriate memo bringing to the notice of the Court that the legal representative of the deceased respondent No. 1 is already on record. As a matter of fact, respondent No. 2 is legal representative of respondent No. 1. Since respondent No. 2 was already on record, there was no need to bring the legal representative once again. For the purpose of completion of formalities the petitioner ought to have filed a memo in that regard. Though a memo was filed, the same was defective. This fault of the petitioner resulted in the orders dated 21.04.2016 and 23.07.2018. Be that as it may, since the legal representative of respondent No. 1, as mentioned supra, is already on record, leniency needs to be shown so as to enable the parties to argue on merits.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the considered opinion that interest of justice will be met, in case, orders dated 21.04.2016 and 23.07.2018 are recalled. Ordered accordingly.

In view of the above, Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 24057­ 24058 of 2011 are restored to their original numbers and shall be  listed in usual course before the appropriate Bench. The review petitions stand disposed of accordingly.

Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly.