IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 19TH MAGHA 1929 CRP.No. 1004 of 2007(F) ---------------------- OPELE.603/1995 of II ADDL.DISTRICT COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER WORLD BANK PROJECT, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD TRICHUR-4 BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER ---------------------------------- MATHAI POULOSE, MARKARAYIL HOUSE,WEST PUNNAMATTOM, ENANALLOOR P.O.,MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ALIAS M.CHERIAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.M. Appln. 1068 of 2007 & C.R.P. NO. 1004 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 8th day of February, 2008. O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the award of the Addl. District Judge, Ernakulam in O.P.603/95. The present application is one to condone the delay of 1315 days. The award is dated 10th October, 2003 and the revision petition is filed on 11.9.07. Even it appears to be incorrect and really the delay is 1515 days and not 1315 days. The ground averred for condoning the delay is that the counsel for the K.S.E.B did not inform about the award and that they got notice of the execution proceedings on 20.9.04 and made arrangements for applying for the copies. But the endorsement on the copy of the award would reveal that the application was filed as C.A.1544/07 on 23.5.07. In spite of an execution petition being filed the KSEB did not think it proper to get a copy of the award and file a revision. It is seen that the execution petition filed by the respondent was dismissed. Then only the K.S.E.B. when EP was filed again enquired and found that the particular advocate has not CMA 1068/07 & CRP NO.1004 of 2007 -:2:- applied for copy. It has to be stated that in a matter which involves substantial amount and when an execution petition is filed and the complaint is that the Advocate did not inform it about the case and in spite of these materials they never chose to apply for a copy till 23rd May 2007. I am conscious of the fact that there can be some possible delay when the matter is dealt with Governmental Agencies on account of various reasons including administrative exigencies. But, here is a case where a Court passed an order as early as in 2004 and they failed to file copy application till 2007. That itself shows the gross negligence. It is true that each day's delay need not be explained elaborately and it is the cause that has to be taken into consideration and the cause stated in the delay condonation application is totally unreliable and it shows the negligence on the part of the K.S.E.B. to file this C.R.P. It is very strongly opposed by the other side and I find that the circumstances explained are not proper and therefore the petition to condone the delay is to be dismissed. Therefore it is dismissed. CMA 1068/07 & CRP NO.1004 of 2007 -:3:- C.R.P. 1004 OF 2007 In view of the dismissal of the delay condonation application, this C.R.P. is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-