IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1931 CRP.No. 2725 of 2002() ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30/10/2002 IN IA.13 /1999 IN AA.108/1996 of APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KANNUR OA.1391/1970 of LAND TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/3RD PARTY: ----------------------------------------- MRS. INDIRA KURUP, W/O. COL.NO. KURUP, 'DEEPAM', CHETTUMCOON, TELLICHERRY, REPRESENTED BY HER HUNSBAND AND POWER OF ATTONRNEY COL.N.R.KURUP, S/O. LATE N.K.M. PILLAI, RESIDING AT 'DEEPAM', CHETTAMCOON, TELLICHERRY-1, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.KUNJHIKANNAN SMT.VIDHYA. A.C RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS 2 to 8 AND 10 TO 26 AND STATE-LRS. OF PETITIONER AND LRS OF RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. PARVATHY ANANDAN, PARVATHY NIVAS, CHIRAKKUNI, P.O. PALAYAD, DHARMADA, TELLICHERRY. 2. K.P. CHANDRAN, DO. DO. 3. K.P. RAJU, DO. DO. 4. K.P. MANOJ, DO. DO. 5. K.P. BINDHU YASINI, DO. DO. 6. K.P. NIRMALA, DO. DO. 7. V.B. NABEESA, V.B. HOUSE, MUTTERI MADAM COMPOUND, CHETTAMCOON, TELLICHERRY-670 101. 8. V.B. MAYAN, DO. DO. 9. T.P. RABIA., T.P. HOUSE, MUTTERI MADAM COMPOUND, CHETTAMCOON, TELLICHERRY-670 101. 10. ZAITHOOM, DO. DO. CRP.2725/02 11.K.P.SARA UMMA,W/O.LATE V.B.HASSU HAJI, BANGALA HOUSE, THOTTAKKATTU KARA, ALWAYE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 12.K.P.MOHAMMED ABDUL KADER, S/O.SARA UMMA, -DO- 13.K.P.FATHIMA,D/O.SARA UMMA, BANGALA HOUSE, -DO- 14.K.P.KADERKUTTY,S/O.SARA UMMA, -DO- 15.K.P.ABDULLA,S/O.SARA UMMA, -DO- 16.K.P.IBRAHIM,S/O.SARA UMMA, -DO- 17.K.P.MARIA REHMATH,D/O.SARA UMMA, -DO- 18.V.B.MOHAMMED,FAHAD NIVAS, PONNANKANDI ROAD, KADAPARAMBA, KANNUR – 3. 19.V.B.PATHUTTY,BAITHUSSALAMMA, KRISHNA NAGAR HOUSING COLONY, MODERN BUS STOP, NALLALAM PANCHAYAT, CALICUT. 20.V.B.KUNHALIKUTTY, TL.NO.36, VALLAKKAD VEEDU, TRIVANDRUM. 21.CHATHUMKANDI KUNHAMINA, W/O. LATE V.B.UMMERKUTTY, KOTTAYAM AMSOM, DESOM, KOTTAYAM MALABAR, KUTHUPARAMBA. 22.SHEREEF,S/O.KUNHAMINA, -DO- 23.ANWAR,S/O.KUNHAMINA (MINOR) 24.SHAMEEM,S/O.KUNHAMINA (MINOR) MINOR RESPONDENTS 23 AND 24 REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND GUARDIAN KUNHAMINA RESPONDENT NO.21. 25.STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF KERALA, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.L.SAJEEV FOR R25 SRI.V.RAJAGOPAL FOR R7 & R9 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/02/2010 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN C.M.P.NO.6886 OF 2002 IN C.R.P.NO.2725 OF 2002 DISMISSED. 23.2.2010 SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.2725 OF 2002 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2010 O R D E R The revision is directed against the order dated 30.10.2002 rendered by the Appellate Authority (LR) Kannur rejecting the appeal filed by the revision petitioner as barred by limitation. Delay in filing the appeal was sought to be condoned by the revision petitioner by filing an affidavit. The order impugned in the appeal related to assignment of jenmam rights in favour of one K.P.Anandan by order dated 6.4.1972 in O.A.No.1391/1970. A purchase certificate had also been issued in his favour on 3.2.1979. Petitioner, who was not a party to the above O.A. filed the appeal on 16.10.1996, that is, twenty four years after the passing of the orders in the O.A. She was outside the State and she got knowledge of the assignment only on her return and also in the course of suo motu proceedings initiated for assignment of one acre 41 cents in her favour, was the cause canvassed by her to condone the delay. The Appellate Authority found that CRP.2725/2002 2 no petition for condoning the delay was filed other than an affidavit, with a prayer for such condonation in the appeal memorandum. Though the petitioner/appellant contended that such a petition had in fact been filed and it was missing in the case records, the Appellate Authority after verification of the records and the registers, was not inclined to accept the case so canvassed. On examining the merit of the case canvassed for condoning the delay also, the Appellate Authority noticed that even after getting a certified copy of the order in O.A.No.1391 of 1970 which was challenged in the appeal there was a further delay of one and a half years in preferring the appeal. That was sought to be explained by the petitioner/appellant contending that she required that much of time for gathering full details and collecting copies of the documents. The order passed by the Appellate Authority styled as a judgment rejecting the appeal holding that the condonation of delay sought for cannot be allowed, is challenged in this revision. 2. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. Perusing the CRP.2725/2002 3 impugned order with reference to the submissions made by the counsel, it is noticed that the petitioner had no case other than her absence from the place for condoning the inordinate delay of twenty four years in preferring the appeal to impeach the correctness of the order passed in O.A.No.1391 of 1970 on 6.4.1972. Though she had advanced a case that the above order came to her notice only after an SM proceedings were initiated in respect of one acre 41 cents to assign the jenmam right over such land in her favour, in the proceedings of which assignment to her was limited to one acre and 10 cents, she did not state or explain at what stage of the SM proceedings she came to know of the assignment under the order passed in O.A.No.1391 of 1970. Her averments in the affidavit indicated that she came to know of the order atleast one and a half years before filing of the appeal. Her explanation that she required so much of time for gathering details, needless to point out can be taken only with a pinch of salt. Despite having had knowledge of the issue of the purchase certificate in O.A.No.1391 of 1970, from her own version, she waited for a further period of one and a CRP.2725/2002 4 half years. That is also a circumstance to indicate that the cause shown for condoning the delay was devoid of any merit. Leaving aside the question whether a petition was filed along with the appeal to condone delay the facts presented itself where it is evident that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay in preferring the appeal, I find no interference with the order passed by the Appellate authority is called for in exercise of revisional jurisdiction vested with this Court. Revision lacks merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.2725 OF 2002 () ----------------------------------- O R D E R 23rd day of February, 2010