IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2008 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1929 CRP.No. 227 of 2004 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18/12/2003 IN I.A.NO.242 OF 2003 IN AS.NO.93/2003 IN O.S.NO.140 OF 2000 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT ------------------------------------------------ GATI DESK TO DESK CARGO, 1-7-293, M.G.ROAD, P.B.NO.20 SECUNDERABAD, 500 003 NOW KNOWN AS GATI LIMITED REP.BY G.RAVINDRAKUMAR MANAGER (LEGAL) POWER HOLDER OF GATI LIMITED, 98A MEENAMBEDU ROAD, SIDCO INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, AMBATTUR, CHENNAI. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY) SRI.JIJO ISAAC RESPONDENTS: RESPODNENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS: ---------------------------------------------- 1. M/S.UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PUTHUSSERY COMPLEX, IIND FLOOR, GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL JUNCTION, ALUVA - 682101, REP.BY ITS ASSISTANT DIVISIONAL MANAGER. 2. FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LTD. 900 TPD AMMONIS POJECT, UDYOGAMANDAL-683 501, COCHIN REP.BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER 1ST RESPONDENT. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: I.A.NO.643/2004 IN C.R.P.NO.227/2004 DISMISSED 22/2/2008 SD/- K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// AHZ/ K.T.SANKARAN, J. -------------------------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 227 OF 2004 D -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd February, 2008 O R D E R The revision petitioner challenges the order in I.A.No.242 of 2003 in A.S.No.93 of 2003, on the file of the Court of the Additional District Judge, North Paravur, which was filed against judgment and decree in O.S.No.140 of 2000, on the file of the Additional Sub Court, North Parur. There was a delay of 273 days in filing the appeal. I.A.No.242 of 2003 was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay. The court below dismissed the application as per the order dated 18th December, 2003, which is under challenge in this Revision. 2. The contention of the revision petitioner is that he was not aware of the decree passed by the trial court on 11.9.2002 and that he came to know about the decree only on 5.3.2003, when a communication was received from the respondent requesting the petitioner to satisfy the decree. It is stated that immediately, the petitioner made arrangements to obtain certified copy of the decree. However, the counsel did not apply for copy and only on 30.5.2003, certified copy was applied for. The appeal was filed on 10.7.2003, though the certified copy was received in June, 2003. The court below held that the reasons are not sufficient to condone C.R.P. NO.227 OF 2004 :: 2 :: the delay. The reason stated for dismissing the application is that an affidavit sworn to by the counsel was not filed and that the reason stated by the petitioner that the counsel failed to inform about the decree passed by the trial court is not a reason for condoning the delay. Having found that the reason stated is not a reason which is capable of being accepted, the court below could not have naturally expected an affidavit of the counsel. Even if such an affidavit is filed, for the reason already stated by the court below, the delay could not be condoned by it. 3. It is true that the affidavit of the counsel is not filed. It is also true that failure on the part of the counsel to inform the petitioner about the dismissal of the suit, strictly speaking, is not a ground for condoning the delay. It is to be noted that the petitioner is having his office at Secunderabad and naturally they have to rely on their advocate. There was lapse on the part of the advocate and it was so stated by the petitioner in the affidavit accompanying the application. The court below could have, according to me, allowed the application on terms so that the inconveniences caused to the respondents are, to some extent, taken care of. By disposal of the appeal on the merits, no prejudice could be caused to the respondents. The prejudice caused to the respondents is only in the matter of delay. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the application can be allowed on terms. C.R.P. NO.227 OF 2004 :: 3 :: For the reasons stated above, the order impugned is set aside and I.A.No.242 of 2003 in A.S.No.93 of 2003 is allowed on condition that the petitioner shall deposit before the court below, for payment to the respondents, a sum of Rs.3,500/- as costs, within a period of six weeks from today. If the petitioner fails to deposit the costs, the Civil Revision Petition shall be treated as dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/ K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- C.R.P.NO. 227 OF 2004 D O R D E R 22nd February, 2008 -------------------------------------------