Appeal and delay application dismissed due to unsatisfactory explanation for 116-day delay. Pending interlocutory applications also dismissed. Entitlement to one-half refund of court fee directed.
Petition for condonation of delay dismissed; appeal dismissed; pending interlocutory applications dismissed; one-half court fee refund directed.
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 ANTONY DOMINIC
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/27TH PHALGUNA, 1937
RFA.No. 913 of 2015 (B)
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN OS 493/2012 of SUB COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY DATED 29-09-2014
APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS:
KUNNATHOOR THALUK (FROM KRISHNAVILASATHU VEEDU
KOVOOR 2ND WARD, ARINALLOOR P.O., THEVALAKKARA VILLAGE, PIN-690 521.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.P.RAMNATH
SRI.P.RAJESH (KOTTAKKAL) SEI.M.VARGHESE VARGHESE SMT.UMA R.KAMATH SMT.S.SANDHYA SRI.BEPIN PAUL SRI.SHALU VARGHESE
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
ARAVINDAKSHAN, AGED 54 YEARS S/O. GOPALAN NAIR, PETTEVEETTIL PUTHEN VEETTIL HOUSE NO. 113, PADINJATTEKKARA MURI THEVALAKKARA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, PIN-690 524.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ANTONY DOMINIC & A.HARIPRASAD, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
C.M.Appln.697 of 2015 & R.F.A. No.913 of 2015
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of March, 2016
JUDGMENT
Antony Dominic, J.
This is an application filed to condone the delay of 116 days in
filing the appeal. We are not satisfied with the explanation offered in the affidavit. Hence, the petition is dismissed.
Consequently, the appeal will also stand dismissed.
All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.
SD/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE
SD/-
A.HARIPRASAD JUDGE
jes
The appellants in R.F.A.913/2015 will be entitled to refund of one half of the one third court fee remitted by them in view of the principle laid down by the Full Bench in Sukumaran Nair v. Special Tahsildar [2009 (4) KLT 342 (FB)] , vide order dated 17/03/2016 in I.A.No.591/2016 and C.M.Appln.No.697/2015 in R.F.A.No.913/2015.
Sd/Registrar (Judicial)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the condonation of delay of 116 days in filing the appeal merits allowance based on the affidavit explanation offered by the appellants.
Whether the appeal filed by the appellants should be dismissed given the failure to condone the delay in filing the appeal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sukumaran Nair v. Special TahsildarReferred¶38
Sukumaran Nair v. Special Tahsildar [2009 (4) KLT 342 (FB)]
KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR & ORS
ARAVINDAKSHAN
ANTONY DOMINIC
A. HARIPRASAD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
