IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 16TH MAGHA 1929 OP.No. 25146 of 2000(R) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ BY ADV. SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL SRI.N.M.MADHU RESPONDENTS: ------------- BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAMKUMAR THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. ----------------------------------- O.P NO. 25146 OF 2000 R ----------------------------------- Dated this the 5th February, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioners challenge Ext.P3. First petitioner is the wife of one late Gopalakrishna Kallat. Petitioners 2 to 4 are the children of Gopalakrishna Kallat. Respondents 2 to 6 are the children of late Raghava Kallat. Respondents 7 to 9 are the children of late Janaki who is none other than the sister of Gopalakrishna Kallat. Gopalakrishna Kallat was issued with Purchase Certificate as per the order of the Land Tribunal dated 30.6.1976. An appeal was carried against the same by respondents 2 to 6. Ext.P1is the application seeking condonation of delay. There is a delay of twentytwo years in filing the appeal. Petitioners filed Ext.P2 objection. It is thereupon that Ext.P3 order was passed allowing ext.P1 application. 2. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no reason for condoning such an inordinate delay of twentytwo OP 25146/00 R 2 years. In support of his contention, he relied on the decision of this Court in Habeeb v. Lathief (1988 (1) KLT 28), wherein this Court has held as follows: "An application for condonation of delay is one to be dealt with in a quasi-judicial manner. The existence of sufficient cause, which has got to be made out by the appellant is the sine qua non for admitting an appeal presented beyond the period limited for it. It is well established that each day's delay has got to be explained before the appellant becomes entitled to admission of the appeal beyond the period prescribed. The existence or otherwise of sufficient cause has got to be tested objectively with reference to the facts disclosed. The authority has to apply its mind to all the facts and the circumstances of the case and the evidence on record and then it has to reach its conclusion whether the facts proved make out sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time. As a quasi- judicial authority, the 3rd respondent was duty bound to give reasons for the exercise of its discretion in condoning the delay in filing the OP 25146/00 R 3 appeal." 3. Learned counsel for respondents 2 to 6 on the other hand relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P. and Another v. U.P. Paper Corporation Pvt. Ltd. ((2002) 9 SCC 585). Therein, the Apex Court held as follows: "When a statutory authority, being satisfied with the reasons for the delay, exercised discretion vested in it under law, by condoning the delay, it was not a fit case for judicial review by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 unless the order impugned was a perverse order or was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice." 4. I notice that, that was a case where there is a delay of 208 days in filing the appeal. I am not prepared to apply the dictum laid down in the facts of this case where there is a delay of twentytwo years. In Ext.P3 order, reference is made to the report of R.I. and thereafter it is stated that it is better to give a OP 25146/00 R 4 chance to the appellant to contest the case on merits. I feel that the order should not be allowed to stand. But, I also feel that the matter should be reconsidered. Accordingly, the Original Petition is allowed and Ext.P3 is quashed. The first respondent is directed to consider Ext.P1 application and take a decision thereon in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk K. M. JOSEPH, J. O.P NO. 25146 OF 2000 R JUDGMENT 5th February, 2008.