IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2008 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1929 CRP.No. 157 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16/07/2007 IN IA. 506 /2005 IN AS.88/2005 OF ADDL. DISTRICT COURT-II, MAVELIKKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF: ------------------------------------------------------------------ G. JANARDHANAN ACHARI, PRASANTHI, ULAVUKADU MURI, PALAMEL VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA FROM AYATHIL HOUSE, ULAVUKADU MURI, PALAMEL VILLAGE, MAVELIKARA. BY ADV. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN UNNITHAN SRI.G.ANANTHANARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS: ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 2. TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, MAVELIKARA. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, PALAMEL. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. R.BINDU THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NO. 157 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2008. O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the order in condoning the delay in I.A.506/05 in A.S.88/05. The State is the applicant for condoning the delay of 262 days in preferring the appeal. It is averred that there is delay of these much days due to time taken for communication with the concerned. It has been opposed by the other side. PW1 deposed in terms of the affidavit. It was challenged on the ground he was not the person in charge. It is explained that the delay in filing the appeal took place due to the delay occurred in the communication. He further stated that permission of the District Collector through R.D.O. is sought. Nothing has been brought out to discard the evidence of PW1 is the view taken by the Court below. The dispute is with respect to a piece of land which is claimed as private property by the plaintiff and a puramboke land by the Government. C.R.P. 157 OF 2008 -:2:- So taking into consideration the entire aspects the Court below condoned the delay and took the file in appeal. 2. In the decision reported in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji (AIR 1987 SC 1353) it is stated that the State also should be treated as any other litigant and the wholesome principle had been reiterated in the said judgment. The Apex Court held that normally a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out a the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a case would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. The Supreme Court further held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. C.R.P. 157 OF 2008 -:3:- 3. The Apex Court pointed out that it must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. The learned counsel had cited the decision of the Apex Court in D. Gopinathan Pillai v. State of Kerala (2007 (2) SCC 322) wherein the Court held the delay cannot be condoned on the sympathetic ground but it should be properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Here the ground alleged for condoning the delay is communication gap. It has to be understood that there is always some delay in processing the papers when the matter pertains to the Government and all delays caused by the Government servants cannot be classified as deliberate or intentional delay but it is on account of the procedural rigour one has to follow in Governmental matters. Unless there is such materials available to show that it was on account of the gross negligence or grave mis-conduct the delay has C.R.P. 157 OF 2008 -:4:- occasioned, it is always desirable to direct the Court to consider the case on merits. It is also to be borne in mind that the bone of contention between the parties is whether the disputed property is a governmental land or a private land which affects the public cause at large. Further evidence of PW1 has been analyzed and accepted by the Court below and no counter evidence has been adduced to rebut what is stated by PW1. So taking into consideration the broad principles of natural justice and the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court and also the evidence that is available I do not find any ground to interfere with the decision rendered by the Court below which has exercised its judicial discretion in a proper manner. Therefore the C.R.P. is lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-