IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 21ST MAGHA 1930 RFA.No. 81 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27/02/2008 IN FDIA. 3430/2001 IN OS.105/1985 of PRL.S.C.,THALASSERY .................... APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS 10 TO 14: ------------------------------ 1. MALATHY, W/O.LATE GOVINDAN THANDARATH CHEKKIYATH, LAKSHMI NIVAS CHIMMNIYAR KALLU, THOTTADA, KANNUR. 2. RAJEEVAN, S/O. LATE GOVINDAN THANDARATH CHEKKIYATH, LAKSHMI NIVAS CHIMMNIYAR KALLU, THOTTADA, KANNUR. 3. RAJESH, S/O. LATE GOVINDAN THANDARATH CHEKKIYATH, LAKSHMI NIVAS CHIMMNIYAR KALLU, THOTTADA, KANNUR. 4. RAJASREE, D/O. LATE GOVINDAN THANDARATH CHEKKIYATH, LAKSHMI NIVAS CHIMMNIYAR KALLU, THOTTADA, KANNUR. 5. RAJANI, D/O. LATE GOVINDAN THANDARATH CHEKKIYATH, LAKSHMI NIVAS CHIMMNIYAR KALLU, THOTTADA, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.V.BINOY RAM RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS/DEFENDANTS 2 TO 9: --------------- 1. THANDARATH PADMINI, D/O.THALAMMA ENALI HOUSE, EKKAL DESOM, ANJARAKANDY, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. PREMALATHA, D/O. PADMINI ENALI HOUSE, EKKAL DESOM, ANJARAKANDY, KANNUR DISTRICT. R.F.A.No.81/2009: : 2 : 3. ASHOKAN, S/O.PADMINI ENALI HOUSE, EKKAL DESOM, ANJARAKANDY, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. USHA, D/O.PADMINI ENALI HOUSE, EKKAL DESOM, ANJARAKANDY, KANNUR DISTRICT. 5. VAMANAN, S/O. PADMINI ENALI HOUSE, EKKAL DESOM, ANJARAKANDY, KANNUR DISTRICT. 6. PREMJITH KUMAR, S/O.PREMALATHA ENALI HOUSE, EKKAL DESOM, ANJARAKANDY, KANNUR DISTRICT. 7. PRESITH KUMAR, S/O.PREMALATHA ENALI HOUSE, EKKAL DESOM, ANJARAKANDY, KANNUR DISTRICT. 8. THRIDEEP KUMAR, S/O.PREMALATHA ENALI HOUSE, EKKAL DESOM, ANJARAKANDY, KANNUR DISTRICT. 9. THANDARATH REVATHI, D/O.LATE THALAMMA PARAMBIL HOUSE, EDAKKAD AMSOM, KEEZHUNNA DESOM KANNUR DISTRICT. 10. LAKSHMI, D/O. THALAMMA, PUSHPA BAKERY NEAR CITY BUS STAND, UDUPPI, SOUTH CANARA, KARNATAKA STATE. 11. SHOBA, D/O. LAKSHMI, PUSHPA BAKERY NEAR CITY BUS STAND, UDUPPI, SOUTH CANARA, KARNATAKA STATE. 12. ASHA, D/O. LAKSHMI, PUSHPA BAKERY NEAR CITY BUS STAND, UDUPPI, SOUTH CANARA, KARNATAKA STATE. 13. SASI, S/O. LAKSHMI, PUSHPA BAKERY NEAR CITY BUS STAND, UDUPPI, SOUTH CANARA, KARNATAKA STATE. 14. VIDHYA, D/O. LAKSHMI, PUSHPA BAKERY NEAR CITY BUS STAND, UDUPPI, SOUTH CANARA, KARNATAKA STATE. 15. PUSHPA, D/O. LAKSHMI, PUSHPA BAKERY NEAR CITY BUS STAND, UDUPPI, SOUTH CANARA, KARNATAKA STATE. THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- R.F.A.No.81 of 2009 & C.M.Appln.No.215 of 2009 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph,J. C.M.Appln.No.215 of 2009 : This is an application for condonation of delay. True, the delay is only 12 days. But on merits we find that the appeal is against the final decree. It is seen from the final judgment that the decree has been passed as the parties have arrived at a settlement (paragraph 2 of the final judgment). It is the case of the appellants (defendants 10 to 14) that there was no such agreement. If that be so, it is for the appellants to bring the same to the notice of the trial court itself seeking a review of the judgment since there is allegedly an error apparent on the face of the record. It is submitted that the property is being delivered today with the assistance of the Police. In case the appellants succeed, no doubt the court will also have to pass the required consequential orders. Therefore, for the only reason that delivery of the property has taken place, R.F.A.No.81 of 2009 & C.M.Appln.No.215 of 2009 -:2:- the subject matter does not become infructuous. We also make it clear that while considering the application for condonation of delay in filing the review petition, the fact that the review petitioners had approached this court in this appeal will also be taken into consideration. 3. In that view of the matter it is not necessary to condone the delay and consider the appeal on merits. The delay petition is dismissed subject to the above observations. Consequently the appeal also is dismissed. 4. By way of abundant caution we make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and the reference to the limited extent required is only for the purpose of the disposal of the application for condonation of delay and the appeal. (KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE) (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE) ahg. KURIAN JOSEPH & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. --------------------------- R.F.A.No.81 of 2009 & C.M.Appln.No.215 of 2009 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 10th February, 2009