IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 7TH ASWINA 1931 CRP.No. 514 of 2009 --------------------- OP(ELE).1898/2008 of VI ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS: -------------------------------------------------------- 1. ST.GEORGE CHURCH REP.BY PARISH PRIEST, FR.MARK ANTONY, AGED 55, KUMBALANGHI P.O. KOCHI-7. 2. K.X.JOSEPH,S/O.XAVIER,AGED 51, KADUNGAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUMBALANGHI P.O. KOCHI-7. 3. JOSEY,S/O. VARGHESE, AGED 57, KURISHINKAL HOUSE, KUMBALANGHI P.O. KOCHI-7. 4. JOSEPH,S/O. SILVY, AGED 53 YEARS, SASTHAMPURACKAL, KUMBALANGHI P.O. KOCHI-7. 5. GEORGE M.O. S/O. OUSO, AGED 55, MUTTUNGAL, KUMBALANGHI P.O.,KOCHI-7 BY ADV. MR.K.L.JOSEPH MS.P.SAREENA GEORGE RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------ KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, K.S.E.B. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/09/2009, ALONG WITH C.R.P.NO.515/2009,AND THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- C.R.P.Nos.514 & 515 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of September, 2009 O R D E R These two revisions have been filed challenging the orders of the learned District Judge, Ernakulam, declining to accept the the two O.Ps filed seeking enhanced compensation for the reason of inordinate delay. Claim for enhanced compensation by the common petitioners in the two revisions were moved under the claim petitions presented before the District Court contending that the notices issued from the Electricity Board could be traced out only belatedly. Admittedly, the trees from the property of the church were cut and removed during 2001. The present parish priest could trace out the notice dated 5.5.2000 only in November, 2008, is the cause pleaded to condone the delay of 1706 days to file the original petitions seeking enhanced compensation in both the original petitions. The learned District not being satisfied with the ground canvassed dismissed the petition to condone the delay. Challenge in the respective revisions is against the orders so passed by the learned District Judge declining to condone delay. C.R.P.Nos.514 & 515 of 2009 2 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. The claimant is a church is the ground canvassed by the counsel and the petitioners are stated to be the parish priest and others in management of the church. Whatever that be, on the facts presented no justifiable reason for condoning the inordinate delay in filing the claim petitions for enhanced compensation has been made out. Revisions lack merit and the petitions are dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-