IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2009 / 24TH POUSHA 1930 CRP.No.838 of 2008 (G) ---------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP.219/03 IN LAR.450/1988 of I ADDL.SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/JUDGEMENT DEBTOR(2) --------------------------------------------------- DEVELOPMENT COMMISSI0NER,COCHIN EXPORT PROCESSING ZONE, (NOW CALLED COCHIN SPECIAL ECONIMIC ZONE), KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682037. BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN C.MENON RESPONDENTS: DECREEE HOLDER/ 1 TO 3 & JUDGEMENT DEBTOR 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ANNIE JOSEPH VALLAMATTAM, VALLAMATTAMS, OLD RAILWAY STATION ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-18. 2. V.J.KURIAN VALLAMATTAM, ADVOCATE, VALLAMATTAMS, OLD RAILWAY STATION ROAD,ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-18. 3. V.M.KURIAN, ADVOCATE, VALLAMATTAMS, I.S.PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN FOR R1 TO 3 SMT.TULASI PANICKER FOR R1 TO 3 SRI.K.T.THOMAS FOR R1 TO 3 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ C. M. Appl. No.1041 of 2008 & C. R. P. No.838 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of January, 2009 ORDER This is an application seeking condonation of delay of as much as 250 days in filing the C.R.P. The impugned order is one passed on 26/09/07 on E.P.219/03 in L.A.R.450/1988 wherein the petitioner was the second judgment debtor. Though order was passed on 26/09/07, copy was applied for only on 24/11/07, after about two months. Stamp papers called for on 16/01/08 were produced on 21/01/08 and though copy was ready and 14/02/08 was fixed as the date to appear to receive copy, copy was taken delivery of only on 12/11/08. The delay sought to be explained (though not satisfactory) is only the delay in submitting copy application. There is absolutely no explanation in the affidavit C. M. Appl. No.1041 of 2008 & C. R. P. No.838 of 2008 -2- accompanying the C.M. Application as to why no enquiry was made as to whether the copy was ready and copy was taken delivery of only on 12/11/08, almost after nine months of the date fixed to receive the copy. In the circumstances, there is no reason or just and sufficient cause to condone the delay of 250 days in filing the C.R.P. This C.M. Application is hence, dismissed. Consequently, the C.R.P also stands dismissed. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-