IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2009 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 7560 of 2009(L) ------------------------- AA.144/1990 of A.A.(LR),THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SANTHOSH, S/O. LATE MAMPILLY GANGADHARAN, PERINGOTTUKARA, KANDASSANKADAVU.P.O, KIZHAKKUMURI VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. LAND REFORMS APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THRISSUR. 2. SAROJINI, W/O. KONANCHERY VASU, PERINGOTTUKARA, KAZHAKKUMURI AMSOM, THRISSUR TALUK. MR.P.N.SANTHOSH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2009, THE COURT ON 11/03/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.7560 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 11th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner states that he is the 3rd respondent in A.A.No.144/90 on the file of the 1st respondent. 2. According to him, appeal was dismissed for default on 13/10/1999. However, the predecessor of the 2nd respondent sought restoration of the appeal by filing Ext.P1, and to which the petitioner's predecessor filed Ext.P2 objection. It is stated that along with Ext.P1, Ext.P3 application for condoning the delay of 2030 days in filing Ext.P1 was also filed, and on that application also, his predecessor had filed Ext.P4 objection. However, ignouring the objections, order was passed by the 1st respondent condoning the delay and allowing restoration. 3. The petitioner submits that despite having applied for copies of these orders, the copies have not been issued so far. It is stated that he pursueded the matter by filing various representations, but however these representations remain without any results. In these circumstances praying that an order requiring WP(C) No.7560/2009 -2- the 1st respondent to issue copies of the orders condoning the delay and allowing restoration of Appeal No.144/1990, this writ petition has been filed. 4. If as stated, the petitioner, being a party to the proceedings, has applied for issuance of copies of the orders as above, there is no reason why the 2nd respondent has declined or delayed the same. Therefore, I direct the 1st respondent to issue copies of the aforesaid orders to the petitioner, if he has already made application for the same. 5. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before the 1st respondent for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg