IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2011 / 17TH ASHADHA 1933 OP(C).No. 2175 of 2011(O) ------------------------------------- [AGAINST IA.NO. 1912/10 IN AS.NO.243/2007 OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM] .................... PETITIONER/1ST REVIEW PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ARJUNAN, MANAMEL VAYALIL VEEDU, MULLUVILA CHERRY, VADAKKEVILA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN. RESPONDENTS/1ST RESPONDENT/REVIEW PETITIONERS 2 TO 11: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. THANKAMANY, CHELLAM VEEDU, MULLUVILA CHERRY, VADAKKEVILA, KOLLAM – 691 010. 2. BHANUMATHY, MANAMEL VAYALIL VEEDU, MULLUVILA CHERRY, VADAKKEVILA, KOLLAM – 691 010. 3. VIJAYAMMA, KANJIRAVAYALIL VEEDU, MULLUVILA CHERRY, VADAKKEVILA, KOLLAM – 691 010. 4. CHANDRA BABU, KANJIRAVAYALIL VEEDU, MULLUVILA CHERRY, VADAKKEVILA, KOLLAM – 691 010. 5. SREE DEVI, KANJIRAVAYALIL VEEDU, MULLUVILA CHERRY, VADAKKEVILA, KOLLAM – 691 010. 6. SURESH BABU, KANJIRAVAYALIL VEEDU, MULLUVILA CHERRY, VADAKKEVILA, KOLLAM – 691 010. 7. SHYLAJA, KANJIRAVAYALIL VEEDU, MULLUVILA CHERRY, VADAKKEVILA, KOLLAM – 691 010. 8. PRADEEP, KANJIRAVAYALIL VEEDU, MULLUVILA CHERRY, VADAKKEVILA, KOLLAM – 691 010. O.P.(C).NO.2175/2011-O: 9. RAJITHA, KANJIRAVAYALIL VEEDU, MULLUVILA CHERRY, VADAKKEVILA, KOLLAM – 691 010. 10. AJITHAT, KANJIRAVAYALIL VEEDU, MULLUVILA CHERRY, VADAKKEVILA, KOLLAM – 691 010. 11. ANANTHAKRISHNAN, KANJIRAVAYALIL VEEDU, MULLUVILA CHERRY, VADAKKEVILA, KOLLAM – 691 010. BY THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.(C).NO.2175/2011-O: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DTD. 06/10/2007. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE PETITION TO CONDONE DELAY DTD. 06/10/2007. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION DTD. 30/08/2010. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 27/06/2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).No.2175 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 08th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Appellant in A.S.No.243 of 2007 of the Court of Learned Second Additional District Judge, Kollam is the petitioner before me. In short, his grievance is that though in the application to condone the delay in filing the appeal, first respondent/appellant has stated the extent of delay as 73 days, it is actually 76days. There is no explanation for the remaining 3 days. Petitioner filed I.A.No.1912 of 2010 to review the order condoning delay. That application was dismissed by Ext.P4, order dated June 27, 2011 which is under challenge. Learned counsel has submitted that there is absolutely no explanation for the delay of 3days in filing the appeal and that it is not a case where learned Second Additional District Judge has condoned the said delay of 3days so that the appeal could have been taken on file. 2. I have gone through the impugned order. It is not disputed that it was with notice to the petitioner also that the delay, be it 73 days or 76 days, was condoned. Learned Second Additional District Judge has pointed out that petitioner who complains of non explanation of delay of three days has filed the O.P(C).No.2175 of 2011 -: 2 :- application for review after 200 days. Learned counsel says that it is only on getting copy of the judgment that petitioner learned about the mistake in the extent of delay. But, that will not save the situation since the order was passed with notice to the petitioner. 3. Now to the question whether delay of 3 days is explained, it is seen from the impugned order that learned Second Additional District Judge has observed that there happened to be calculation mistake for the counsel who presented the appeal. Learned Second Additional District Judge observed that the order does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record which would cause any miscarriage of justice. I do not find reason to interfere, having regard to the fact that even according to the petitioner the unexplained delay is only of three days. This petition is dismissed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-