2009 (1) TMI 548

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 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....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rder dated 18-9-2006. 2. When this special leave petition came for hearing before the earlier Division Bench on 25-11-2008, a query was raised by the Court as to whether prosecution of Review Proceedings would be sufficient cause for purposes of Section 5 of the limitation Act, 1963. This query was raised by the Court because in numerous matters, this Court finds enormous delay in the fili....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tomy 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 is no impediment to the filing of the special leave petition. Large number of judgments were cited before us b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e aforestated reasons, we hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special leave petition stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition. In exercise of discretion under Article 136 to decide whether delay ....