IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2011 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1933 FAO.No. 76 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29/10/2010 IN IA.736/2007,IA.737/2008 IN AS.103/1991 of DISTRICT COURT, MANJERI .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. ABDUL MANAF, S/O. CHILAMBUKADAN KUNHAMMUTTY, R/AT ARAKKUPARAMBA AMSOM DESOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK. 2. KATHEEJA, -DO-, -DO- 3. MYMOONA, -DO-, -DO- 4. AYISHAKUTTY, -DO-, -DO- BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR SMT.VANDANA MENON SMT.ANJU P.NAIR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MANCHERI PARUKUTTY AMMA, D/O. N. NARAYANAN NAIR, R/AT ARAKKUPARAMBA AMSOM DESOM, PERITHALMANNA TALUK - 679 322. 2. KESAVADASAN, S/O.M.PARUKUTTY AMMA, R/AT ARAKKUPARAMBA AMSOM DESOM, PERITHALMANNA TALUK - 679 322. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, PERINTHALMANNA. 679 322 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM – 676 505 FAO 76/2011 -2- 5. MUHAMMED, S/O. CHILAMBUKADAN KUNHAMMUTTY, ARAKKUPARAMBA AMSOM DESOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK - 679 322. 6. ABOOBACKER, S/O. CHILAMBUKADAN KUNHAMMUTTY, ARAKKUPARAMBA AMSOM DESOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK - 679 322. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SHAIJ RAJ T.K FOR R3,4 THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- FAO No.76 of 2011 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of October 2011 Judgment This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.10.2010 on IA No.737/08 in AS No.103/1991 which was a petition to restore the appeal to file followed by IA No.736/07 to condone the delay in filing the petition. The lower appellate court, by a perfunctory order, dismissed the petition to condone the delay and consequently the petition to restore the appeal also. 2. One can only say that the order is unfortunate. No facts are seen stated and reasons for dismissing the petition are also not seen mentioned. It is well settled by now that when an order is passed by an authority, rejecting an application, it should be a speaking order and reasons should be shown, especially when the order is an appealable one. Such conditions are not satisfied in this case. The order is cryptic and it does not appear that there has been an application of mind. The FAO 76/11 2 court below ought to have remembered that courts exist for adjudicating issues between parties and not merely for enforcing discipline. At any rate, reasons ought to have been given as to why it was found that there was no sufficient cause to condone the delay. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the lower appellate court to pass orders on the CM Application on merits and in accordance with law. The parties shall appear before the lower appellate court on 15.11.2011. The lower appellate court shall dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible. P.Bhavadasan, Judge sta FAO 76/11 3