IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1932 FAO.No. 340 of 2009() ------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30/05/2009 IN IA.187/2009 IN AS.231/2008 of SUB COURT, CHENGANNUR .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS ------------------------------------------ 1. T.I.GEORGE, THANUVELITHARAYIL VEEDU, KODUKULANJI MURI ALA VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK. 2. GEORGE CHERIAN DO..DO.. 3. GEORGE JOHN DO..DO.. 4. GEORGE ABRAHAM THAZHAMMUTTATH VEEDU DO..DO.. BY ADV. SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL RESPONDENT(S): COUNTER PETITIONER ----------------------------------------------------------- JACOB MATHEW THAZHAMMUTTATH HOUSE, KODUKULANJI MURI ALA VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK. R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.HARIDAS THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- C.M.Appl.No.2187 OF 2009 & F.A.O.No.340 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. C.M.Appl.No.2187/09 Perused the affidavit. Heard. Application to condone delay is submitted stating that due to financial difficulties, the appellant could not engage counsel and have the appeal filed immediately on receipt of the certified copy of the judgment. He accordingly pleads that the delay may be condoned. We have looked into the merits of the appeal as well. We find that sufficient cause to condone the delay has been shown. The application is allowed. F.A.O.340/09 The court below has dismissed the first appeal under Section 96 CPC on default. Within the time prescribed to apply FAO.340/09 2 for re-admission of that appeal, an application was filed. The reason stated was that the Advocate whom the appeal was entrusted could not appropriately represent when the case was taken up. Taking the view that re-admission of an appeal is not an empty formality, the court below has dismissed that application. The appeal was of the year 2004 and a default of non-appearance should not be visited with such penalty as the appellant is shown to have suffered. We are satisfied that there are sufficient cause for re-admitting the appeal dismissed for default. With this, we set aside the impugned order, allow I.A.187/09 and re-admit A.S.No.231/08 of the Subordinate Court, Chengannur to file. The parties are directed to appear before the court below on 15.12.2010. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- P.BHAVADASAN, Judge. kkb.26/11.