IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2010 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 OP(C).NO. 948 OF 2010(O) --------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 3294/07 IN CMA.135/2007 OF ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER: -------------------- CHETTARIKKAL ENTERPRISES KURIES & LOANS P.O.KORATTY, REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MRS.MOOKAMBI, W/O.VALAYUDHAN, PADIYATH HOUSE, CHETTARIKKAL, KORATTY SOUTH PO MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.KRISHNAN NAIR SRI.V.B.NARAYANAN SRI.ANIYANKUNJU VARGHESE SRI.M.P.HARIKUMARAN PILLAI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- P.R.NARAYANAN ELAYATH, S/O.RAMAN ELAYATH PEESAMPILLY ILLOM, MANGALASSERY DESOM, KIZHAKKUMMURY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK KORATTY SOUTH PO, THRISSUR DISTRICT. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== O.P(C) No.948 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 01st day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T This petition is filed challenging Exts.P16 to P18, orders on I.A. Nos.730, 729 and 728 of 2010, respectively in C.M.A. No.135 of 2005 of the court of learned Additional District Judge-I, Thrissur. Respondent filed I.A. No.1304 of 2010 in E.P. No.140 of 2000 in O.S. No.207 of 1997 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Irinjalakuda under Rule 90 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the sale. That application was dismissed. Dismissal of I.A. No.1304 of 2004 was challenged in C.M.A. No.135 of 2007 before the learned Additional District Judge. Since that appeal was preferred beyond the prescribed time, respondent filed I.A. No.3294 of 2007 to condone the delay of 959 days in filing that appeal. It would appear that I.A. No.3294 of 2007 was dismissed for default and consequently C.M.A. No.135 of 2007 was also dismissed. After 113 days respondent filed I.A. No.730 of 2010 for restoration of I.A. No.3294 of 2007 (which was filed to condone the delay in filing the C.M. Appeal and which was dismissed for O.P(C) No.948 of 2010 -: 2 :- default), I.A. No.728 of 2010 to condone the delay of 113 days in filing I.A. No.730 of 2010 and I.A. No.729 of 2010 to readmit the C.M. Appeal (which was dismissed for default consequent to the dismissal of I.A. No.3294 of 2007). Learned Additional District Judge has passed orders on I.A. Nos.728, 729 and 730 of 2010 in the following manner: “Heard allowed”. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that serious objections were raised to I.A. Nos.728 of 730 of 2010 but it is without considering the objection raised and the question whether there was sufficient explanation for the delay that the impugned orders were passed. It is also contended by learned counsel that effect of Exts.P16 to P18, orders is that the C.M. Appeal itself is admitted though it was preferred after 959 days and I.A. No.3294 (to condone the delay in filing the C.M. Appeal) has not so far been allowed. 2. Learned Additional District Judge should have passed speaking orders on the applications. The superior courts and parties are entitled to to know the reasons for learned Additional O.P(C) No.948 of 2010 -: 3 :- District Judge passing the impugned orders. The impugned orders lack reasoning. Now the question is whether for the said reason the impugned orders are to be set aside and the matter remitted to the learned Additional District Judge. 3. I have gone through the affidavits in support of I.A. Nos.728 to 730 of 2010 where respondent has stated reason for the delay for filing the applications for restoration of I.A. No.3294 of 2007 and to set aside the dismissal of C.M.A. 135 of 2007 for default consequent to the dismissal of I.A. No.3294 of 2007. I must bear in mind that a remand would only further delay proceedings before learned Additional District Judge and consequently, the execution proceedings. Considering the larger interest in the matter, I am not inclined to interfere. 4. Though it is contended by learned counsel that effect of Ext.P16 to P18, orders is admission of C.M.A. No.135 of 2007 itself, I am unable to accept that argument. For, when I.A.No.729 of 2010 was allowed as per Ext.P17, order it only meant that dismissal of C.M.A. No.135 of 2007 on account of dismissal of I.A. No.3294 of 2007 for default is set aside. In other words position is brought back to the situation where I.A. No.3294 of 2007 is pending consideration before learned Additional District Judge O.P(C) No.948 of 2010 -: 4 :- and if that be, so it cannot be said that C.M.A. No.135 of 2007 has been admitted as if delay in filing that appeal has been condoned. Going by Exts.P16 to P18, orders I find that I.A. No.3294 of 2007 has not been disposed of in which case it meant that C.M.A. No.135 of 2007 is not admitted so far. I.A. No.3294 of 2007 is still pending. 5. In the circumstances stated above though the impugned orders are cryptic, since reason for delay in filing I.A. No.730 of 2010 is contained in the affidavit in support of that application and to avoid further delay in two courts I do not find reason to interfere with the impugned orders. Learned Additional District Judge is directed to dispose of I.A. No.3294 of 2007 (for condoning delay in filing C.M.A. No.135 of 2007) as early as possible after giving both sides opportunity to adduce evidence, if any and by a speaking order. Original Petition is disposed of with the above direction. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv