Allowed

Kanthalloor Grama Panchayat v. M/S.Kodoor Engineers

Kerala HC14 Sept 2012CRP/267/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In revision petitions challenging the rejection of belated appeals, the High Court held that sufficient grounds for condoning the 365-day delay existed due to budgetary timing and administrative transfer. Petitioner was directed to pay costs to permit merits disposal.

What did the court decide?

Regular Second Appeal and Civil Revision Petition allowed; judgments set aside if costs of Rs.10,000 paid; matter remanded to lower appellate court.

Kanthalloor Grama Panchayat Vs M/S.Kodoor Engineers — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/23RD BHADRA 1934

¶5

CRP.No. 267 of 2011 ( )

¶6

A.S.NO.160/2010 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM OS.700/2006 of II ADDL.M.C., ERNAKULAM

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/IST DEFENDANT:

¶8

KANTHALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT,OFFICE OF THE KANTHALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT,KANTHALLOOR PO IDUKKI DISTRICT,PIN 685 620,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF & DEFENDANTS:

¶11

1. M/S.KONDOOR ENGINEER(P) LTD.,A PVT.LTD. CO.INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT HAVING ITS REG.OFFICE AT XL/851-1,AZAD RD,ERNAKULAM COCHIN-17 REP.BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AND MANAGER ADMINISTRATION, RAJESH KEJARIWAL, AGED 40 YEARS,

¶12

S/O. K.D. KEJARIWAL RESIDING AT 35/225-B , AUTOMOBILE ROAD, PALARIVATTOM P.O, COCHIN -682025

¶13

2. M/S.SOCIO ECONOMIC UNIT FOUNDATION (SEUF) TC 16/309,EASWARAVILASAM ROAD,THYCAUD PO THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-14,REP.BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.

¶14

3. POURNAMI KUDIVELLA SUJITHVA SAMITHI, KANTHALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,KANTHALLOOR REP.BY ITS PRESIDENT.-685620

¶15

4. SRI.MARIMUTHU,AGE NOT KNOWN ,PRESIDENT, POURNAMI KUDIVELLA SUJITHVA SAMITHI KANTHALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,KANTHALLOOR-685620

¶16

5. SMT.LATHA,AGE NOT KNOWN ,SECRETARY, POURNAMI KUDIVELLA SUJITHVA SAMITHI KANTHALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,KANTHALLOOR-685620

¶17

6. EVANGELICAL SOCIAL ACTION FORUM(ESAF), KANTHALLOOR ROAD, SAHAYAGIRI PO, MARAYOOR REP.BY, ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICER.-685626

¶18

CRP.No. 267 of 2011 ( )

¶19

--2--

¶20

R1 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS M.JACOB BY ADV. SRI.AKHIL K.MADHAV BY ADV. SRI.LINTO FRANCIS R6 BY ADV. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR BY ADV. SMT.V.SHYLAJA R3 AND R4 BY ADV. SRI.R.DIVAKARAN

¶21

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-092012, ALONG WITH RSA. 591/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

V.CHITAMBARESH,J.

¶23

= = = = = = = = = = =

¶24

R.S.A No.591 of 2011 & C.R.P. No.267 of 2011 = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = Dated this the 14^th day of September, 2012

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

The suits - O.S Nos.699/2006 and 700/2006 - were for realisation of money towards goods supplied. The plaintiff laid the claim on the ground that he had supplied pipes for the drinking water projects of the Panchayath . The first defendant in both the suits is the Panchayath and the sixth defendant in both the suits is one of the implementing agencies .

¶27

The delay in filing appeals by the sixth defendant has been condoned and the appeals -A.S Nos.72-2012 and 71-2012 - are pending on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ernakulam. But the appeals filed by the first defendant Panchayath were rejected as belated against which R.S.A No.59/2011 and C.R.P No.267/2011 have been filed.

¶28

The Panchayath has a contention that the delay occurred on account of the transfer of its Secretary and that there was acute financial problem for them at the material time.

¶29

R.S.A No.591 of 2011 & C.R.P. No.267 of 2011 2

¶30

The budgetary allotments were made only late and hence the appeals could be preferred only with a petition to condone the delay of 365 days. I feel that the appeals filed by the first defendant Panchayath can also be heard on merits especially when the appeals filed by the sixth defendant are pending consideration after condonation of delay.

¶31

There is of course some latches on the part of the first defendant Panchayath in not filing the appeals in time which could be condoned by directing them to pay costs. I allow the Regular Second Appeal and the Civil Revision Petition on condition that the first defendant pays a total sum of Rs.10,000/to the counsel for the plaintiff (first respondent) in these cases within a period of one month . The judgment of the lower appellate court impugned in R.S A No.591/2011 and C.R.P No.267/2011 are set aside if the costs is paid as directed above within the time stipulated. The matter is remanded to the lower appellate court for disposal of the appeals filed by the first defendant Panchayath on merits for which the parties shall appear in the lower appellate court on 1-11-2012.

¶32

Needless to say that the four appeals shall be consolidated and disposed of by the lower appellate court within

¶33

R.S.A No.591 of 2011 & C.R.P. No.267 of 2011

¶34

¶35

a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The court fee paid on the memorandum of regular second appeal shall be refunded to the appellant.

¶36

The Regular Second Appeal and the Civil Revision Petition are allowed as above.

¶37

V.CHITAMBARESH. JUDGE

¶38

smm

¶39

R.S.A No.591 of 2011 & C.R.P. No.267 of 2011 4

Kanthalloor Grama Panchayat v. M/S.Kodoor Engineers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanthalloor Grama Panchayat v. M/S.Kodoor Engineers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijaya Rajan Pillai Vs Parukutty Amma & 4 Ors.

Molikutty George Vs State of Kerala

Susamma Babu Vs Gracy Soman

Sree Narayanan Dharma Paripalana Yogam Vs Chirutha Panickathu Lekshmi and Others

Babu Poojary Vs Subba Poojary

Vilson Vs Babu