IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1931 CRP.No. 267 of 2002 ----------------------------- [I.A. NO.306/2001 IN CMA.NO.147/2001 OF PRL.DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY] .................... REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. ANJANIKKAL THRESSIAMMA, W/O.ULAHANNAN, AGED 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT "ANJANIKKAL", MANATHANA AMSOM, DESOM, PERAVOOR. BY ADVS. MR.C.KHALID, MR.N.GOPINATHA PANICKER, MR.P.VISWAMBARAN, MR.R.O.MUHAMED SHEMEEM, MR.T.P.SAJID (THALASSERY). RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------- THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR(GENERAL), KANNUR AT THALASSERY. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- CRP No.267 of 2002 ------------------------------------- Dated 22nd February 2010 Order Aggrieved by the dismissal of IA No.306/01 in CMA No.147/01, which was a petition to condone the delay in filing the appeal, the petitioner has come up in revision. 2. Consequent on the disposal of the petition, the appeal was also dismissed. The petitioner claims to have purchased 2.8 acres of land comprised in RS No.44 of SRO, Peravoor in Kannur District. The consideration, which she paid was Rs.1,50,000/-. Pointing out that the property was undervalued, proceedings under the Stamp Act were initiated by the appropriate authorities and she was ordered to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- as deficit stamp duty and a sum of Rs.6,000/- as registration fee. 3. The petitioner sought to challenge the proceedings in appeal. But, it so happened that the appeal was out of time and therefore, she filed IA No.306/01 to condone the delay in filing it. That was dismissed. 4. There was no justification for the Court below to have dismissed the application for condonation of delay. The petitioner had explained the reason, why she was unable to prefer the appeal within CRP 267/02 2 time. There was no reason to believe that the reasons given by her are not true. It is stated that the petitioner came to know about the pendency of the proceedings only when she found a notice lying in her vacant house. 5. Whatever that be, it is felt that it is only just and proper that the petitioner is given an opportunity to agitate her appeal on merits. In the result, this Petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Appellate Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law and in the light of what has been stated herein above. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta CRP 267/02 3 P.BHAVADASAN, J. ======================== CRP No.267 of 2002 ======================== Order DATED 22ND FEBRUARY 2010 ========================= CRP 267/02 4 P.BHAVADASAN, J. -------------------------------------------------------- SA No.261 OF 1995 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated 30th June 2009 Judgment CRP 267/02 5