IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 27TH MAGHA 1930 AFA.No. 13 of 1999() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN LAA.3/1996 Dated 16/09/1998 .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS -------------- 1. JOSEPH PATHU, THEKKEPALACKAL, PUNNAPRA. 2. SIMON, -DO- -DO- 3. SUNCHON, -DO- -DO- 4. CLEETUS, -DO- -DO- 5. GRIGORY, -DO- -DO- 6. RAJEENA, -DO- -DO- 7. PHILOMINA, -DO- -DO- BY ADV. SRI.M.V.MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A.) RAILWAY, ALAPPUZHA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS APPEAL FROM FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------------- A.F.A.No.13 of 1999 ------------------------------- Dated this the 16th February, 2009 J U D G M E N T Raman, J. This appeal is against the judgment of this Court in L.A.A.No.3/1996. The appellants were claimants in L.A.R.No.406 of 1989, on the file of the Principle Sub Court, Alappuzha. The land belonging to them along with various others were acquired for a public purpose. The award was passed by the District Collector. Dissatisfied with the award, claimants sought for a reference. When the matter was posted before the Reference Court, in the absence of any evidence on the side of the appellant, the Reference Court confirmed the award and the review filed was also dismissed. Against that, the appellants filed C.R.P.No.2110 of 1995 before this Court. This Court held that the judgment dismissing the reference for default cannot be reviewed and no restoration is possible under Order IX Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure. The civil revision petition was A.F.A.No.13 of 1999 2 accordingly dismissed and become final. The correctness of the judgment rendered in the civil revision petition, therefore, cannot be canvassed in this appeal. We are bound by the final judgment rendered in the earlier proceedings. 2. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred against the order, with a petition to condone the delay. The learned Single Judge considered C.M.P.No.18 of 1996, a petition seeking condonation of delay of more than 636 days in filing the appeal. After considering the matter, by an elaborate order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition for condonation of delay. Consequently, the appeal was also dismissed. 3. The only point that arises for consideration is as to whether the order of the learned Single Judge in dismissing the condonation application is in any way liable to be interfered with, in an intra court appeal, by the Division Bench. The explanation offered for the delay is that the appellants preferred a review petition and a further revision and until all these proceedings were disposed of, they did not file an appeal. It is A.F.A.No.13 of 1999 3 nobody's fault. The appellants could have withdrawn their revision without prejudice to file an appeal. But that was not done. The revision was disposed of on merits. Having invited for an order in the civil revision petition, the question of considering the matter again in an appeal does not arise. Further, there is a long delay caused in filing the appeal. In such circumstances, this Court having found that the delay is not excusable, no question arises for correction by this Court in an intra court appeal, against the discretion having been exercised by the learned Single Judge. We find no merit calling for interference in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. nj. P.R.RAMAN & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------------- A.F.A.No. 13 of 1999 J U D G M E N T Dated: 16th February, 2009. -------------------------------