IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 12TH MAGHA 1932 SA.No. 433 of 1998(B) -------------------------- AS.197/1996 of DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA OS.960/1990 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, ALAPPUZHA (IA.4197/92) .................... APPELLANT(S):APPELLANT/6TH DEFENDANT ---------------------------------------------------- CHANDRASEKHARAN @ BOSE, S/O.PADMANABHAN, MUTTUNKAL HOUSE, SOUTH ARYAD MURI, SOUTH ARYAD VILLAGE, AMBALAPUZHA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.P.S.KRISHNA PILLAI RESPONDENT(S):RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS & DEFENDANTS 1 TO 5 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CHELLAMMA, D/O.GOWRI, PUTHUKKARASSERIL HOUSE, ARYAD SOUTH MURI, ARYAD SOUTH VILLAGE,AMBALAPPUZHA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. BHASURA DEVI, D/O.CHELLAMMA,DO. HOUSE DO. 3. MAHILAMONY,D/O.CHELLAMMA,DO. HOUSE DO. 4. PRAMEELA, D/O. CHELLAMMA, DO. HOUSE DO. 5. SUSHAMA,D/O. CHELLAMMA, DO. HOUSE DO. 6. AJAYKUMAR,S/O. CHELLAMMA, DO. HOUSE DO. 7. RADHAMONY,W/O.SUBRAMANYAN, KANDATHIL VEEDU, PUNNAMADA, ALAPPUZHA. 8. SANJAYAN, S/O.SUBRAMANYAN,DO. HOUSE DO. 9. SAJITHA, D/O.S/O.SUBRAMANYAN,DO. HOUSE DO. 10. AJALA,D/O.S/O.SUBRAMANYAN,DO. HOUSE DO. 11. SAHADEVAN,MUTTUNKAL HOUSE, PUNNAMADA, ALAPPUZHA. R1 TO R6 BY ADV. SRI.M.V.MATHEW THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs P.BHAVADASAN, J. ---------------------------- S.A.No. 433 of 1998 --------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT The 6th defendant in O.S. No.960/1990 before the Munsiff's Court, Alappuzha, is the appellant before this Court. The suit was one for partition. Preliminary decree and final decree were passed by the trial court. 2. The aggrieved 6th defendant challenged the final decree in appeal as A.S.No.197/1996, but, unfortunately, there was delay in filing the appeal and so, a petition for condonation of delay was also filed. The lower appellate court dismissed the delay condonation petition and consequently, the appeal also. Hence this appeal. 3. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the lower appellate court ought not to have dismissed the delay condonation petition and an opportunity ought to have been given to the appellant to establish his case. 4. The grievance of the appellant seems to be justified. The lower appellate court ought to have given him an opportunity to place his case on merits. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate court is set aside and the matter is remanded to S.A.No. 433 of 1998 2 the lower appellate court with a direction to take back the appeal on file and disposed in accordance with law. Parties shall appear before the lower appellate court on 10.03.2010. The lower appellate court shall made every endeavour to dispose of the matter within three months from the date of appearance of the parties before it. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. ln