IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2010 / 16TH POUSHA 1931 Ex.FA.No. 131 of 2009 ------------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03/08/2005 IN EP.434/03,EA.1084/05 IN OS.1051/2001 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT/CLAIM PETITIONER ---------------------------------------------------- DAVIS,S/O.PALOSE,GED 59 YEARS, VADAKKETHALA OUTHADAN HOUSE,KARAMUCK VILLAGE, P.O.KANDASSAMKADAVU,THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN SMT.P.G.BABITHA RESPONDENTS / DECREE HOLDER / JUDGMENT DEBTOR -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. FEDERAL BANK LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER,P.O,VADANAPPALLYL,THRISSUR DIST. 2. A.A.MUHAMMED HANEEFA,S/O.ABOOBACKER, ARAKKAVEETTIL HOUSE,FAROOQ NAGAR,VADANAPPALLY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. V.S.VASUDEVAN,S/O.SANKUNNY, VALAPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.THRUTHALLUR. 4. M.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,S/O.AYYAPPAKKUTTY, MANGANGATH HOUSE,P.O,THALLIKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. THIS EXECUTION FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.M.Appln.3800 OF 2009 & Ex.F.A.NO.131 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of January 2010 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. The prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is to condone the delay of 1119 days in filing this Execution First Appeal. The appeal is directed against the order passed on the claim petition filed by the appellant under Order 21 Rule 58 as E.A.1084/05 in E.P.434/03 in O.S.1051/01 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge's Court, Thrissur. The said claim petition was dismissed on the ground that the appellant had not produced all the relevant documents in order to substantiate his case. Petitioner preferred Writ Petition No.26278/05 challenging the above order passed by the court below. It is the admitted position that the writ petition was disposed of by this court with liberty to the petitioner to file a review petition before the Execution Court. Petitioner submits that he preferred such an application. But since no orders were passed for quite sometime, he preferred Writ Petition 30387/08 before this court seeking an appropriate direction. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Execution Court to pass orders on the review petition expeditiously. 2. The review petition was dismissed by the Execution Court by its order dated November 24, 2008. The petitioner did not stop there. He came before this Court again and filed Writ Petition No.317/09 impugning the said order. This Court disposed of the writ petition giving liberty to the petitioner to seek C.M.Appln.3800 OF 2009 & Ex.F.A.NO.131 OF 2009 :: 2 :: appropriate remedies as provided under the Code of Civil Procedure. It is thus that the petitioner has ultimately filed this appeal under Order 21 Rule 103 of the Code. 3. We have carefully perused the affidavit filed in support of the application and heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel that petitioner had been prosecuting his case diligently and with all bonafides. We are unable to agree. It cannot be stated that petitioner has been prosecuting the case as innocently as he now projects it. The purported ignorance of law, in our view, is not as innocuous as the petitioner wants this court to believe. Having carefully perused the entire materials available on record and also the impugned order passed by the court below, we are not at all satisfied that notice has to be issued on the delay petition. Therefore, the petition is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also rejected. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE jes