IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2010 / 23TH POUSHA 1931 FAO.No. 130 of 2009 ------------------------ ( IA 759/2008 & OP.40/2008 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT-i MAVELIKKARA) .................... APPELLANT/ PETITIONER ------------------------------ G.MOHANAKURUP, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.GOVINDAKURUP, KOLADATHU VEETTIL, KEERIKKADU THEKKUM MURI, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.RENJITHKUMAR SRI.PADMALAYAN.P.P. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------- D.PRASANNAKUMAR, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.DAMODARAN NAMBOOTHIRI, SREE RAMAJAYAM VEEDU, PUNNAMMOOTTIL, KANDALLOOR VADAKKUM MURI, KEERIPPAD P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR FOR R1 SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) FOR R1 THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/01/2010, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 30666 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A. K. Basheer & M.L.Joseph Francis, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - F.A.O. No. 130 of 2009 & W.P.(C).No. 30666 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13th day of January, 2010. Judgment Basheer, J: Since this appeal and writ petition are directed against inter- dependent orders passed by the lower appellate court in a suit for money, and since the parties are common, they are being heard and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The common challenge in the appeal and writ petition is against the order passed by the Additional District Court No.I, Mavelikkara in I.A.No.759/2008 (Delay) and O.P (Indigent). No.40/2008. In the writ petition the prayer is for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the orders passed on the delay petition as well as on the Indigent Petition. 3. Appellant/writ petitioner suffered a decree in a money suit instituted by the respondent herein. He sought to challenge the above decree and judgment as an indigent person before the Addl. District Court, Mavelikkara. The application for permission to file the appeal as an indigent person was filed along with a petition to condone the delay of 295 days. The court below held that the delay had not been properly explained, and accordingly rejected the Interlocutory Application. Consequently the Indigent Application was also dismissed. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties on either side and perused the materials available on record. FAO.130 & WP.30666/09. 2 5. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the appellant/writ petitioner has to be afforded an opportunity to prosecute his indigent petition before the lower appellate court. We are persuaded to take the above view since according to the appellant he is possessed of hardly one cent of land where his petty bunk is situated. It is submitted before us that the appellant is in penury and is not now in a position even to conduct his petty shop. 6. Anyhow, we do not propose to express any opinion on the above contention. In our view the entire aspect of the matter has to be considered by the lower appellate court in the Indigent Petition. In any view of the matter, we are satisfied that the court below was not justified in rejecting the application for condonation of delay. The impugned orders are set aside. 7. The application for condonation of delay and the Indigent Petition shall be considered by the court below on merit and appropriate orders thereon shall be passed in accordance with law. The F.A.O. and the Writ Petition are disposed of in the above terms. A.K. Basheer Judge M.L. Joseph Francis Judge. an.