IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2009 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 26559 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA. 1828 /2008 IN AS.367/2008 of DISTRICT COURT,KOLLAM OS.312/2006 of MUNSIFF COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY .................... PETITIONER: --------------- JOSEPH VARGHESE S/O.VARGHESE, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE EDAKULANGARA PO, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENT: --------------- VINCENT JOHN, S/O.JOHN WEST PLAVILA, KALLELUBHAGOM,KARUNAGAPPALLY KOLLAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.V.V.RAJA SRI.R.RANJITH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX (W.P.C.26559/09) PETITIONER'S EXTS.: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL A.S.NO.367/08 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM DATED NIL. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION I.A.NO.1828/08 DATED NIL IN A.S.NO.367/08 BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.8.09 IN I.A.NO.1828/08 IN A.S.NO.367/08 BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM. S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 26559 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 23rd November, 2009 JUDGMENT The Writ Petition is filed seeking mainly the following reliefs: 1.To call for the records leading to Ext.P3 and quash the same by a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order in so far as it directs the petitioner to deposit half the decreetal amount. 2. To stay the operation of Exhibit P3, until the disposal of the writ petition. 2. Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.312 of 2006 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Karunagappally. Suit is one for money, and the respondent is the plaintiff. Suit being decreed in favour of the plaintiff, petitioner filed an appeal as A.S.No.367 of 2008, but, with a petition to condone the delay of 52 days, before the District Court, Kollam. After enquiry, the delay was condoned subject to the condition of depositing one half of the decree amount. P3 is copy of that order. Propriety and correctness of P3 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the counsel on both sides. Having regard to the W.P.C.No.26559/09 - 2 - submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find the condition imposed directing the petitioner/appellant to deposit one half of the decree amount for condoning the delay of 52 days is highly excessive and unreasonable. From the submissions made, I find that there is no circumstance to indicate that there was culpable or deliberate default on the part of the petitioner/appellant in preferring the appeal in time. However, when the appeal is preferred after the time prescribed, the injury likely to be caused to the opposite party has to be compensated. In modification of P3 order, petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- (Rs.One Thousand only) to the respondent/plaintiff in reparation of the injury likely to be suffered by him in entertaining a time barred appeal. Cost ordered shall be paid to the counsel appearing for the respondent in this court on or before 1.12.2009 and a memo filed before 3.12.2009. Post on 4.12.2009 for report. Writ Petition is disposed as indicated above. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE