K PANDARINATHAN Vs. M/S SRI KUMARAN STORES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Petition has been filed for condoning the delay of 281 days in representing the Review Application SR.No.98499 of 2009 in O.S.A.No.158 of 2008.

(2.) BRIEF facts necessary for disposal of this Petition is that Review Petitioner has filed C.S.No.178 of 1997 against the Respondents for recovery of a sum of Rs.29,60,000/- with future interest at the rate of 24% towards the commission on Rs.20,00,000/-, a sum of Rs.2,72,500/- towards repayment of the loan due to Bank of Baroda with Rs.38,150/- towards interest and Rs.83,62,849/- with future interest at the rate of 18% per annum. By the judgment dated 20.12.2007, learned single Judge decreed the suit in part directing the Defendants 1 and 2 to pay to the Petitioner a sum of Rs.22,72,000/- with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realisation. Aggrieved by disallowing of the claim, Petitioner has preferred O.S.A.No.158 of 2008. Challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge, Respondents have preferred O.S.A.No.173 of 2008. By the common judgment [06.10.2009], the Division Bench while directing the amount liable to be paid by the Respondents-Defendants as Rs.22,72,500/-, modified the rate of interest from 6% to 12% per annum on the claim of Rs.22,72,500/- and dismissed both the appeals.

(3.) TAKING us through the judgment of the single Judge as well as the common Judgment of the Division Bench in O.S.A.No.158 of 2008, Mr.V.Manohar, learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that Court did not advert into the aspect of claiming the turnover commission for which notional value was made and paid the stamp duty to that effect which has resulted in depriving of the amount due to the Review Petitioner and Review Petitioner has substantial grounds to seek for review the common judgment dated 06.10.2009 rendered in O.S.A.No.158 of 2008. Learned counsel for Review Petitioner would further submit that Petitioner was affected with Tuberculosis and was taking treatment in Andhra Pradesh and his daughter was also affected by Typhoid fever and therefore, he could not contact his counsel to give instructions and comply the returns which has caused the delay in representation and prays for condonation of delay of 281 days in representing the Review Application. In support of his contention, learned counsel for Review Petitioner placed reliance upon (2000) 6 SCC 359 [Kunhayammed and others v. State of Kerala and another].