IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 26TH BHADRA 1932 FAO.No. 211 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11/11/2009 IN IA.1427/09 IN LAR.152/2008 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONER IN I.A./CLAIMANT IN L.A.R. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ANILA BABU, AGED 49 YEARS, W/O.BABU GEORGE, KURISINKAL HOUSE, 29/23, TOC.H.ROAD, VYTILA, KOCHI. 2. SHERI MOHAN, AGED 42 YEARS, W/O.MOHAN GEORGE,KURISINKAL HOUSE, 29/23-A, 5TH LANE, VYTILA, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.S.RENJITH SRI.T.R.S.KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN IA & LAR. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. COCHIN PORT TRUST, WILLINGOTON ISLAND, KOCHI. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.B. RAMANAND R2 BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - F.A. O. No. 211 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of September, 2010. JUDGMENT Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J, Learned Government Pleader takes notice for the first respondent. Adv. Sri. E.K.Nandakumar takes notice for the second respondent. Service complete. We deem it appropriate that this matter is dealt with immediately. 2. The appellants are respondents in land acquisition reference. They say that the reference was disposed of for default. They applied for restoration. That stands dismissed on the ground that the application is barred by limitation and that there is no application to condone the delay in seeking restoration. As the order now stands, we cannot find fault with it, if as a matter of fact there is delay in filing the application FAO.211/2010. 2 for restoring the reference. But the learned counsel for the appellants states that the question whether the application was barred by limitation was never the case of any of the respondents, nor was the application noted as defective or time barred by the office of the court below. He also says that his client was also not aware of the fact that the application was time barred. We are clear in our mind that these are not excuses, which would lead to the criticism of the order impugned before us. Therefore, it may be a case where there is a bonafide mistake in not filing an application to condone the delay. In such circumstances, we order that the court below will give the appellants an opportunity to file an application to condone the delay in filing I.A. No. 1427 of 2009 and also an application for review of the impugned order, subject ofcourse to the result of the application to condone delay. FAO.211/2010. 3 FAO is ordered accordingly. Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, Judge P. Bhavadasan, Judge sb.