THIMMAIAH Vs. M MUNISWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the Learned Counsel for the petitioner on I. A. I/04 and the Learned advocate for respondents. There is a delay of 638 days in filing this review petition. Perused the affidavit filed in support of the application.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner/applicant, she acquired knowledge of the order dated 18. 11. 02 passed by this Court at the end of July, 2004. Therefore, she has come up with this review petition. According to her, she was not served with notice of the writ petition filed by the 1st respondent. Inspite of direction given by this Court dated 20. 2. 2001 to pay process fee, the 1st respondent has not paid the same. Therefore, this Court had passed an order dated 20. 3. 2001 holding that respondents-4 and 5 were deemed to have been served and hence, service of notice to Respondents-4 and 5 was treated as sufficient. Apart from this, she states that she is a proper and necessary party to the writ petition. Since, she was not served with the notice, she had no opportunity to defend the case.

(3.) AS against this, the 1st respondent filed a detailed objections contending that this Court has no jurisdiction to review its own order passed long back i. e. , 18. 11. 2002 in W. P. No. 23958/94 (LR)and the present review petition is not at all maintainable, as the petitioner/ applicant has filed a false affidavit. The review petition is filed on 28. 9. 04 and there is a delay of one year nine months and the delay has not been properly explained by the petitioner. She herself had filed o. S. No. 5729/95 before the 16th Additional Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore against B. D. A. and others, wherein the 1st respondent was arrayed as defendant No. 8 for the relief of permanent injunction. She had filed a written statement stating that the W. P. No. 23958/94 has been filed and was disposed off later by quashing the order of the Land Tribunal order in l. R. F. No. 36/1979-80 and the suit was dismissed against her and defendant Nos. 1 and 9. The petitioner had the knowledge about the disposal of the writ petition in the month of July itself. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that no notice was served on her is not a ground to entertain the application and condone the delay. Therefore, the respondents pray for dismissal of