IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2010 / 31ST BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 34303 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.6.2009 IN I.A.NO.386/2009 IN AS.91/2009 of DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD OS.165/2005 of MUNSIFF COURT, CHITTUR .................... PETITIONER: --------------- N.HARIDASA MENON, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. KESAVA MENON, VERIYATH HOUS, NALLEPILLY VILLAGE, CHITTUR. BY ADV. MR.K.MOHANAKANNAN MS.A.R.PRAVITHA RESPONDENT: --------------- K.SAYED MOHAMMED, S/O. HYDRU, MANAGER THEYYAMPATTIL JWELLERS, PALAKKAD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 34303 of 2009(O) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION AS I.A.NO.386/2009 BEFORE THE DISTRICT JUDGE, PALAKKAD. EXT.P2: OBJECTION FILED IN I.A.NO.386/09 BEFORE THE DISTRICT JUDGE, PALAKKAD. EXT.P3: APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED BY THE RESPONDENT AS A.S.NO.91/2009 BEFORE THE DISTRICT JUDGE, PALAKKAD. EXT.P4: ORDER IN I.A.NO.386/2009 IN A.S.NO.91/2009 BEFORE THE DISTRICT JUDGE, PALAKKAD. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL ....... // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No.34303 Of 2009 ---------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2010. J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P4 order passed by the District Court, Palakkad. Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.165 of 2005 of the Munsiff Court, Chittur and the appellant in A.S.No.91 of 2009 of the District Court, Palakkad. Ext.P4 order was passed in the petition filed as I.A.No.386 of 2009 to condone the delay of 454 days in filing the appeal. Ext.P1 is the copy of the affidavit and I.A.No.386 of 2009. Ext.P2 is the counter affidavit. Ext.P3 is the appeal memorandum in A.S.No.91 of 2009. The District Judge, Palakkad examined the reasons pleaded for condoning the delay of 454 days in filing the appeal. The court after appreciating the reasons condoned the delay and observed that there was latches on the part of the petitioner in conducting the case. The court took a liberal view considering the fact that the appellant has got tenable contentions raised in the appeal. The court condoned the delay on payment of Rs.750/- as cost to the respondent. W.P.(C).No.34303 Of 2009 ::2:: 2. Strictly speaking, as found by the court below, the delay was not satisfactorily explained. At the same time, the court took the view that this is a fit case for allowing the application to condone the delay. The court also is of the view that the appellant has raised tenable contentions in the appeal. The court took a lenient view and condoned the delay. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the view that Ext.P4 order passed by the court is not liable to be interfered with in a proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition fails and accordingly, dismissed. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-