IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2011 / 13TH ASHADHA 1933 CRP.No. 622 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 2/2009 IN AA.3/2009 of APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KANNUR ................... REVN. PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT NO.1 ---------------------------------------------------------- KOLOTH VALAPPIL NARAYANAN, KAVUTHEEYAN PARAMBA, KADAMBOOR, P.O.ETAKKAD, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN: 670 663. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN SMT.SREEJA SOHAN.K. SRI.GEORGE JOSEPH PULIMOOTTIL SRI.K.DILIP SRI.ROVIN RODRIGUES RESPONDENTS/ APPELLANT & RESPONDENT NO.2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE CHAIRMAN, TRUSTEE BOARD, PUTHRIKOVIL DEVASWOM, P.O.ETAKKAD, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN: 670 663. 2. KUNNATH CHAKKARAYAN RADHA, KADAMBUR AMSOM DESOM, CHIRAKKAL P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN: 670 011. 3. APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LR) KANNUR, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN. ADV. SRI.MOHAN C.MENON FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R3 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: dmb CRP.No. 622 of 2010 I.A.NOS.2942/2010 & 703/2011 DISMISSED Sd/- 4.7.2011 THOMAS P.JOSEPH JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE dmb THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ C.R.P. No.622 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 4th day of July 2011 O R D E R This civil revision arises from the order passed by the Appellate Authority (LR), Kannur on I.A.No.2 of 2009 in A.A.No.3 of 2009 filed by the first respondent challenging the order of the Land Tribunal, Kannur in O.A.No.7364 of 1975. The Land Tribunal passed the order in respect of 1.65 acres. The first respondent challenged the order in appeal and filed an application for condoning the delay of 11,920 days. While the appeal and I.A.No.2 of 2009 were pending before the Appellate Authority, first respondent approached this Court in W.P.(C)No.28902 of 2009 for a direction to the Appellate Authority for early disposal of the application. This Court as per judgment dated February 4, 2010 directed the Appellate Authority to dispose of I.A.No.2 of 2009 as early as possible and observed that in case delay is condoned, the appeal has to be entertained and the same shall be disposed of within one month thereafter. C.R.P. No.622 of 2010 -: 2 :- 2. Pursuant to the said order, the Appellate Authority expedited its proceeding. On July 28, 2010, the Appellate Authority condoned the delay of about 33 years by the impugned order. Learned counsel contends that it is without any material on record that the delay is condoned. It is also contended by learned counsel that had the contention of petitioner been accepted, I.A.No.2 of 2009 would have been dismissed and consequently A.A.No.3 of 2009 also would have been dismissed. In view of that, the order on I.A.No.2 of 2009 can be challenged in revision under Sec.103 of the KLR Act. Learned counsel for first respondent contends that only a final order of the Appellate Authority can be challenged by way of revision. Order in I.A.No.2 of 2009 is not a final order and hence cannot be challenged in revision under Sec.103 of the KLR Act. It is also pointed out by learned counsel that in view of the order in W.P.(C).No.28902 of 2009, petitioner cannot challenge the impugned order. 3. It is not necessary for me to go into the contentions whether a revision is maintainable under Sec.103 of the Act C.R.P. No.622 of 2010 -: 3 :- or, in view of the decision in the writ petition petitioner is precluded from challenging the order condoning the delay. Reason is that in case the appeal is ultimately decided against petitioner, he has the opportunity to challenge the judgment of the Appellate Authority in a revision under Sec.103 of the Act and in that revision, it is open to the petitioner to challenge correctness of the order allowing I.A.No.2 of 2009. This is not disputed by learned counsel for respondents also. In the above circumstance, it is not necessary to decide this revision in challenging the order on I.A.No.2 of 2009. Resultantly this C.R.P is disposed of reserving right of petitioner to challenge correctness of the order on I.A.No.2 of 2009 in a revision preferred against judgment of the Appellate Authority. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. Jvt