Revisions petition against dismissal of an application seeking condonation of delay to file an appeal. The Court held that the appellant did not show sufficient cause for the excessive delay and dismissed the revision petition as lacking merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1931
CRP.No. 336 of 2009()
--------------------AA.25/2007 OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY(LR),THRISSUR S.M.P.NO.5/95 OF THE LAND TRIBUNAL, OTTAPALAM.
REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT
C.MOHANDAS,CHARAKKUMALIL HOUSE, KULIKKALLUR.PO,OTTAPALAM TALUK,PIN:679337, PALAKKAD.
BY ADV. SRI.D.ANIL KUMAR
RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS
ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI FOR R1 & 2
SRI.R.SREEHARI FOR R1 & 2
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P.No.336 of 2009
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 9th November, 2009
ORDER
The revision is directed against the order dated 12.12.2008 in A.A.No.25 of 2007 passed by the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Thrissur. Challenge in the revision is against the order passed in an application filed by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay of 1620 days in filing an appeal against the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Ottappalam in a suo motu proceedings, issuing a purchase certificate to the respondents. The case pleaded for condonation of delay, as seen from the impugned order, is that the applicant came to know of the suo motu proceedings and also the order passed only when reference was made to such proceedings in a suit filed by the respondents, namely, O.S.No.214 of 2002 before the Sub Court, Ottappalam. However, in that suit also, according to the applicant, the number of the suo motu proceedings was wrongly stated and the applicant could trace out the correct number after further enquiry. To mislead the applicant the number of the suo motu proceedings was stated in the plaint of the respondents as 570/95, whereas correct number was 5/95, is his case. The Appellate Authority, after
CRP No.336/09 - 2 -
examining the merit of the petition moved by the applicant/revision petitioner to condone the delay was not satisfied of the reasons set forth for such condonation and the application was, therefore, dismissed. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contended that the applicant had shown justifiable cause for condoning the delay, but, the Appellate Authority went wrong in dismissing the application. Perusing the impugned order, it is seen, the applicant had purchased the property much later to the issue of the purchase certificate pursuant to the order passed in the S.M.Proceedings by the Land Tribunal. It appears that the certificate had been issued over the land involved in favour of the respondents at least five years before the applicant purchased the property under a registered deed in 2000. If at all he is a bonafide purchaser, an enquiry over the land with respect to the revenue records would have brought to his notice the issue of the certificate in S.M.Proceedings in favour of the respondents. So much so, the cause shown that he came to know of the S.M.Proceedings and also the certificate issued thereunder in favour of the respondents only after having further enquiry after a statement was made in respect of the S.M.Proceedings in the suit filed by the respondents can be taken
CRP No.336/09 - 3 -
only with pinch of salt. It has also been taken note of by the Appellate Authority that the delay extended to 12 years, but, the application was filed to condone delay for a period of five years only. I do not find any impropriety or illegality in the order passed by the Appellate Authority holding that the applicant has not made out sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Revision lacks merit, and it is dismissed.
S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE
srd
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the revision petitioner established justifiable cause for condoning a delay of 1620 days in filing an appeal against the Appellate Authority's order.
Whether the Appellate Authority erred in dismissing the application for condonation of delay.
Whether the revision petition has any merit.
C. Mohandas
Kamaladevi
Ramachandran
State of Kerala
S.S. Satheesan Chandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
