IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2011 / 8TH MAGHA 1932 CRP.No. 1789 of 2003() ---------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30/10/2002 IN IA.95/99 IN AA.39/1999 of APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LAND REFORMS), KANNUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT ----------------------------------------- M/S.ASSAMBROOK LTD., REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY MANAGER, CHIRAKKARA P.O., MANANTHAVADY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE, SENIOR ADVOCATE SMT.PRIYA MAHESH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS & STATE ------------------------------------------------- 1. P. SAIDU, PALLIYALIL HOUSE, P.O. THATTAMALA, MANANTHAVADY, KANHIRANGAD VILLAGE, MANANTHAVADY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 2. K.GOPALAN NAIR, PULIKKOTHUMMAL, PORUNNANNOOR VILLAGE, KARINGARI,P.O. THARUVANA, (VIA), MANANTHAVADY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs M.N. KRISHNAN,J. ........................................... C.R.P.NO.1789 OF 2003 ............................................. Dated this the 28th day of January, 2011. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order in I.A.No.95/1999 in A.A.No.39/1999 of the Appellate authority, Kannur. The revision petitioner is not a party to the SM Proceedings 475/95. It is alleged that the first respondent obtained a certificate of purchase showing the second respondent as the landlord. The revision petitioner was not made a party. The revision petitioner came to know about the proceedings only when the said certificate of purchase was produced in a suit for injunction filed by the 1st respondent. Since the revision petitioner was not a party to the proceedings and as he came to know about the proceedings only belatedly, he had moved an application to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The appellate authority had stated that there is no explanation for the delay from 22.2.1999 to 8.3.1999 and from 18.3.1999 to 13.4.1999 and therefore dismissed the delay petition and also the appeal. 2. It is clear that the revision petitioner is not a party : 2 : C.R.P.NO.1789 OF 2003 before the Land Tribunal. A certificate of purchase is obtained by the first respondent against the second respondent in the appeal. It is also a settled principle of law that unless there is a personal notice as contemplated under Section 72F(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, that will not be binding on the person who is not served with notice. 3. Here the revision petitioner is not even a party to the proceedings. So far as condonation of delay is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had laid down the principles to be followed in the celebrated decision reported in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji (AIR 1987 SC 1353). The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that “when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay”. It was also cautioned that “it must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds, but because it is capable of : 3 : C.R.P.NO.1789 OF 2003 removing injustice and is expected to do so”. 4. Here is a case where a certificate that produced had been obtained behind the back of the revision petitioner and from the date of knowledge, the appeal is seen preferred within 40 or 50 days. Therefore the appellate authority was incorrect in dismissing the application to condone the delay. There are grounds to condone the delay. Therefore the appeal is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the Appellate Authority is directed to restore the appeal to file, send notice to the parties and dispose of the matter in accordance with law. The revision is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. cl : 4 : C.R.P.NO.1789 OF 2003 M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... C.R.P.NO.1789 OF 2003 ............................................. 28th January, 2011. O R D E R