IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 2ND ASWINA 1932 FAO.No. 160 of 2010() ------------------------------- IA. 298/2009, 299/2009, 297/2009, & 300/2009 IN AS.161/2008 OF SUB COURT, CHENGANNUR .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS ------------------------------------------ 1. CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, CHENGANNUR REPRESENTED BY MANAGER RT. REV. JOSEPH MAR IRENIUS SAFFRAGON METROPOLITAN. 2. PRINCIPAL, CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, CHENGANNUR BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHANAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------ 1. VIJAYALKSHMI SIVANIKETH, PENNUKKARA NORTH, ALA VILLAGE, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER K.K.RAMACHANDRA KURUP. 2. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGE EDUCATION, KOTTAYAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.ASHOK KUMAR. R2 & R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.P.K. RAVIKRISHNAN. THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. HARUN-UL-RASHID,JJ. ------------------------------- F.A.O.NO. 160 OF 2010 ------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2010 JUDGMENT Defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.295/04 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Chengannur are the appellants herein. They are appellants in A.S.No.161/08 on the file of the Sub Court, Chengannur. The Munsiff's Court decreed the suit allowing the plaintiff to realise an amount of Rs.46,320/- with interest at 6% per annum from the defendants. 2. The appellants herein preferred the afore-said appeal. There was a delay of 160 days in filing the said appeal. I.A.No.752 is the petition for condonation of delay in filing the said appeal. The Lower Appellate Court dismissed the delay petition and the appeal for default. I.A.No.297/09 was filed for readmission of the appeal. Since there was a delay of 22 days in filing the said petition, the appellants filed I.A.No.298/09 for condonation of delay. By the impugned order the Lower Appellate Court -2- F.A.O.No.160/2010 dismissed the petition for condonation of delay of 22 days in filing the petition for re-admission. The Appellate Court observed that the reasons stated for condonation of delay could not be substantiated by palpable evidence. The appellants filed I.A.No.299/09 to restore the delay petition for restoration of the appeal and also filed I.A.No.300/09 to condone the delay in filing the said petition. 3. It is a fact that the appeal stands dismissed for default. The present applications namely, I.A.Nos.297/09 and 299/09 are for re-admission and condonation of delay respectively. The delay is only 22 days. The Lower Appellate Court dismissed the delay petition without stating valid reasons. It is a fact that if the appeal is not restored, there may not be a decision on merits. In the interest of justice, this Court is of the view that the appellants shall be given an opportunity to contest the case on merits. This Court is of the view that the dismissal of the petition for condonation of delay of 22 days in filing the petition for restoration is unjustified. -3- F.A.O.No.160/2010 In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned orders passed in IA.Nos.297/09, 298/09, 299/09 and 300/09 are set aside. The appeal and the petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal are restored to file. The court below shall dispose of the petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the delay is condoned, the court below shall dispose of the appeal on merits within a period of three months thereafter. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. kcv.