IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 30TH MAGHA 1929 CRP.No. 958 of 2002(E) ---------------------- AGAISNT THE ORDER DATED 16-01-2002 IN I.A. 61/2001 IN AA.24/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY .(LR),THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT NO.1 --------------------------------- AMMINI, W/O. KALLUPARAMBIL MANIKKAN, PERUMBLISSERY, CHEVVOOR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN RESPONDENTS: APPELLANTS-RESPONDENT NO.2 --------------------------------------------------- 1. AYYAKKUTTY, W/O. LATE AYYAPPAN, PERUMANATH PULAYANKURUPPATH, PERUMBLISSERY, CHEVVOOR, THRISSUR. 2. LEELA, D/O. AYYAKKUTTY, PERUMANATH PULAYANKURUPPATH, PERUMBLISSERY, CHEVVOOR, THRISSUR. 3. UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O. AYYAKKUTTY, PERUMANATH PULAYANKURUPPATH, PERUMBLISSERY, CHEVVOOR, THRISSUR. 4. KUNJIKKALI, W/O. LATE AYYAPPAN, PERUMANATH PULAYANKURUPPATH, CHERPU VILLAGE, PADINJATTUMURI DESOM. 5. RAVI, S/O. LATE AYYAPPAN, PERUMANATH PULAYANKURUPPATH, CHERPU VILLAGE, PADINJATTUMURI DESOM. 6. MANI, S/O. KOCHUKUTTAN, CHEKKEDATH, THAIKKATTUSSERY, OLLUR. 7. SOBHANA, D/O. KOCHUKUTTAN, CHEKKEDATH, THAIKKATTUSSERY, OLLUR. 8. LEELA, D/O. KOCHUKUTTAN, CHEKKEDATH, THAIKKATTUSSERY, OLLUR. 9. KOCHUMOL, D/O. KOCHUKUTTAN, CHEKKEDATH, THAIKKATTUSSERY, OLLUR. 10. CHITTOOR MANAKKAL VASUDEVAN NAMBOODIRIPPAD, P.O. CHERPU, TRICHUR TALUK. 11. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.N.SUDHA THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-02-2008 THE COURT ON 19/02/2008 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN C.M.P. NO.2506 OF 2002 IN C.R.P. NO. 958 OF 2002 DISMISSED 19-02-2008 SD/- HARUN-UL-RASHID , JUDGE HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------------------------ C.R.P No. 958 of 2002 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of February 2008 ORDER The 1st respondent in A.A. 24/2001 on the file of the Court of Appellate Authority (LR) Thrissur is the revision petitioner. The appellate authority condone the delay of 948 days in filing the appeal. Being aggrieved by the impugned order condoning the delay the revision petitioner has come up in revision . The respondents have to consider as appellants challenged the assignment of Kudikidappu right issued by the Special Thasildar Thrissur in favour of the revision petitioner by filing the appeal. Along with the appeal they have filed I.A. No. 61/2001 for condoning the delay of 948 days in filing the appeal . The reasons stated for the condonation of delay is that the advocate appeared for them before the Munsiff Court, Thrissur in O.S. 908/1997 did not bring the fact of assignment of kudikidappu right to their knowledge and thereby they could not file the appeal in time. It is stated that the in objection to interim petition for injunction filed in O.S. 908/1997 as early as on 26-5-1997 the 1st respondent stated that she is entitled to kudiklidappu right and that proceedings for purchase of kudikidappu right is pending before the Land Tribunal The application for condonation of delay was strongly opposed by the revision petitioner. He has also contended that the appellants have absolutely no right over the property extending to 4 cents and that he obtained purchase certificate after impleading the land lords as parties. The revision petitioner also brought to my notice that the appellants are aware of the proceedings pending before the Land Tribunal as early as on 26-5-1997 and therefore there is no justification in filing his appeal in the year 2001. In the written statement on 16-1-1998 also in the said suit the fact of pendency of application for purchase was brought to the notice of the appellants. The counsel for the revision petitioner also submitted that though the application for condonation of delay was seriously opposed the appellate court has not chosen to even to consider the reasons for the delay and to condone the delay without appreciating the facts pointed out by the revision petitioner. After going through the material on record I am of the view that the appellate authority went wrong in condoning the delay of 948 days in filing the appeal without sufficient and satisfactory reasons. The reasons stated by the appellants for condonation of delay is not convincing and is no sufficient for condonation of delay. In the result, this Civil Revision petition is allowed. The order passed by the Appellate Authoirty under revision is set aside. There will be no order as to costs. HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE es