Sasi (D) Through LRs v. Aravindakshan Nair and Others
Background
The petitioner's regular second appeal before the Kerala High Court was dismissed in March 2012. A review petition filed against that dismissal was then kept pending, undecided, by the High Court for almost four years, before finally being rejected in October 2016 as barred by limitation. The petitioner then approached the Supreme Court by special leave, explaining a delay of about 1700 days in doing so on the ground that he had all along been pursuing the review remedy before the High Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Court held that the second appeal itself was devoid of merit and that the special leave petition deserved to be dismissed both on the ground of delay and on merits. However, it used the occasion to criticise the High Court's practice of letting a review application languish for four years before disposing of it in a manner that effectively exercised an appellate function, which is impermissible in review jurisdiction (citing Thungabhadra Industries and Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi on the narrow scope of review). It directed that applications for review must be disposed of expeditiously, that High Court Registries must place review matters before the concerned Judge/Bench promptly and flag defects early, and ordered a copy of the order sent to the Registrar General of every High Court for the attention of the Chief Justices.
Lesson Learnt
Even while dismissing this particular case, the Supreme Court made clear that High Courts must decide review petitions quickly, letting one sit for years, as happened here, creates exactly the kind of long, hard-to-explain delay that can later sink a litigant's case before a higher court.