IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2009 / 27TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 29410 of 2009(O) -------------------------- CMA.27/2008 OF THE DISTRICT COURT,THODUPUZHA OS.25/1998 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, DEVICOLAM .................... PETITIONER: APPELLANT/PETITIONER/DEFENDANT --------------------------------------------- S.MUNIYANDI, S/O. SINKARAVEL, AGED 56 YEARS, PARACHERIVU, PALLIVASAL VILLAGE, MUNNAR. BY ADV. SRI.T.J.MICHAEL RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF ------------------------------------------------ THE GENERAL MANAGER, TATA TEA LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, MUNNAR, K.D.H.VILLAGE, MUNNAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/10/2009 ALONG WITH W.P.C.29487/09, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED TH FOLLOWING: S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) Nos.29410 & 29487 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 19th October, 2009 JUDGMENT Common petitioner in these two Writ Petitions was the defendant in two suits, O.S.No.25 of 1998 and O.S.No.244 of 1998 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Devikulam, both such suits instituted by the common respondent. O.S.No.244 of 1998 was for fixation of boundary and the other, O.S.No.2 of 1998 for recovery of possession. In both suits, ex parte decrees were passed in favour of the respondent. Applications moved for setting aside the ex parte decree, according to the petitioner, without his knowledge, by his counsel, were dismissed as early in June, 2003. Later, the petitioner moved applications, according to him, without knowledge of the previous dismissal, two years after the passing of the decrees. In view of the dismissal of the previous applications, his subsequent applications were dismissed. Thereafter, petitioner moved two C.M.Appeals with petitions to condone the delay of five years and five days to challenge the orders passed under the previous applications. The learned District Judge dismissed the petitions filed to condone the delay in preferring the appeals. Challenging the propriety and correctness of the orders passed in the petitions moved with the respective W.P.C.Nos.29410 & 29487/09 - 2 - C.M.Appeals declining the request of the petitioner to condone the delay, these Writ Petitions have been filed. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Since both Writ Petitions involved common questions, though relating to two different orders passed by the court below, they are disposed under this common judgment. Having regard to the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, I find no notice to the respondent is necessary, and it is dispensed with. Perusing the orders passed by the learned District Judge on the delay petitions moved in the respective appeals, I find no impropriety or illegality. Previous application was filed by the petitioner himself and the case advanced that it was filed without his knowledge by his counsel was found unacceptable. The delay of five years and five days in preferring the appeals was also found not properly explained. Merely, because the respondent is a company allegedly holding large tract of land, which is canvassed for condonation, a different yardstick cannot be applied in the case of the petitioner to show indulgence when the inordinate delay in challenging the orders had not been properly explained. There is no merit in the Writ Petitions, and they are dismissed. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE W.P.C.Nos.29410 & 29487/09 - 3 -