IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2010 / 16TH POUSHA 1931 CRP.No. 662 of 2009() --------------------- AA.104/1994 of APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KANNUR OA.3864/1976 of LAND TRIBUNAL, KANHANGAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- JOHN KARIPAT, S/O. AUGUSTINE, RETIRED COLLEGE TEACHER, JUDGES AVENUE, KALOOR, COCHIN -17. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM ADV. ASHA SUCHITHRA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. MOILIA KARILLATH MAMMAD, R/AT ERALAL, BELUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK P.O. THAYANNUR, 2. ONAVILLATH KESAVAN VAZHANNUVAR, IRIYA BELUR VILLAGE, P.O. PULLUR (VIA), ANANDARSRAMAM, 3. STATE OF KERALA, BY GOVT. PLEADER HIGH COURT OF KERALA. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/01/2010 ALONG WITH C.R.P NO.677/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.Nos.662 AND 677 OF 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of January 2010 ---------------------------------------------------------- ORDER These two revisions are filed against separate orders passed by the Appellate Authority (LR), Kannur dismissing the applications moved for restoring two appeals which had been dismissed for default. Both the appeals, A.A No.103 and 104 of 1994 were dismissed for default on 23/11/1995. After lapse of six years, the common appellant moved applications for restoring the appeals seeking condonation of delay. The Appellate Authority, not being satisfied with the grounds raised, dismissed that applications vide separate orders dated 29/08/2001. Those orders are sought to be challenged in the above two revisions seeking condonation of delay for a period of 2960 days in preferring such revisions. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perusing the affidavit sworn to in support of the petition to condone delay by the appellant and also the submissions C.R.P.Nos.662 AND 677 OF 2009 Page numbers made by the learned counsel, I find no justifiable ground for condoning delay and entertaining the revisions. The appeals dismissed for default were sought to be restored seeking condonation of delay of more than six years. The orders passed by the Appellant Authority declining the request are sought to be challenged by way of revisions after a span of eight years. The petitions moved to condone such inordinate delay are devoid of merit and they are dismissed. With the result, the revisions are also dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv