IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2010 / 21ST JYAISTHA 1932 CRP.No. 103 of 2004() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27/06/2003 IN IA.3958 & 3960/2000 IN LAR.123/1991 of SUB COURT, NORTH PARAVUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: --------------------- VIJAYAN S/O.NARAYANAN, AGED 42 YEARS, CHATHANATTU HOUSE, METHALA P.O., ASSAMANNOOR VILLAGE, KUNATHUNADU TALUK BY ADV. SRI.P.K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER: SRI M L SAJEEVAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.No. 103 of 2004 --------------------------------------- Dated this 11th day of June, 2010 ORDER Including the case on hand there were ten reference cases arising from the same notification claiming enhanced land value. All the cases except the one on hand were disposed of by the learned Sub Judge allowing enhanced land value. Petitioner was under the impression that his case (L.A.R.No.123 of 1991) was disposed of along with the other similar cases but, later learned that his case was also disposed of but by a dismissal for default. Thereon petitioner filed I.A.Nos.3958 of 2000 and 3960 of 2000 for restoration of the reference case and to condone the delay of 7 years in filing that application. Learned Sub Judge was of the view that delay is not explained and consequently refused to condone the delay and set aside dismissal of the reference case. That order is under challenge in this revision petition. It is contended by learned counsel that it was under a bonafide impression that petitioner's case also was decided along with the remaining cases that petitioner did not apply for restoration on time. I have heard learned Government Pleader appearing for State as well. 2. It is not disputed that there were nine other cases C.R.P.No.103 of 2004 : 2 : arising from the same notification and though, not jointly those cases were disposed of simultaneously allowing enhanced land value. There is no reason to think that petitioner, having sought reference of his claim for enhanced land value to the reference court would keep idle and allow his reference case to be dismissed for default. Petitioner did not stand to gain by such a conduct since his claim for enhanced land value was being dismissed for default. I do not find reason to think that there was any willful delay or latches on the part of petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I accept the reason stated by petitioner for the cause of delay as sufficient. Resultantly this revision petition is allowed and the order dated 27-06-2003 on I.A.Nos.3958 of 2008 and 3960 of 2000 in L.A.R.No.123 of 1991 of the court of learned Sub Judge, North Paravur is set aside. Those applications will stand allowed and reference case restored to file. Learned Sub Judge shall dispose of the reference case as provided under law after giving both sides opportunity to adduce evidence. Parties shall appear in the court below on 12-07-2010. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-