IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1933 OP(C).No. 3334 of 2011(O) ----------------------------------- AA.50/2006 of APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LR), ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER : - ----------------------- KOCHUKUTTI AMMA, KARTHYAYINI AMMA, AGED 78 YEARS, D/O.KOCHUKUTTI AMMA, PUTHEN THAZHATHU PANTHEZHATHU, PERUMTHURITHU MURI, KANJIKUZHI VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADVS. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR SMT. BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN SMT.T.J.SEEMA RESPONDENTS : - -------------------------- 1. JANAKI,W/O.NARAYANAN, KUTTIDACHIRAYIL, PERUMTHURUTHU MURI, KANJIKUZHI VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA 688 524. 2. VIMALA, D/O.JANAKI, KUTTIDACHIRAYIL,PERUMTHURUTHU MURI, KANJIKUZHI VILLAGE,CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA 688 524. 3. KUMUDA KUMARI, KUTTIDACHIRAYIL, PERUMTHURUTHU MURI, KANJIKUZHI VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA 688 524. 4. HARIDAS, S/O.JANAKI, KUTTIDACHIRAYIL,PERUMTHURUTHU MURI, KANJIKUZHI VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA 688 524. 5. RATHIMANI, D/O.JANAKI, KUTTIDACHIRAYIL, PERUMTHURUTHU MURI, KANJIKUZHI VILLAGE,CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA 688 524. R1 TO R5 BY ADVS. SRI.T.JAYAKRISHNA SRI.NIDHI BALACHANDRAN THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(C).No. 3334 of 2011(O) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT P1 : COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE LAND TRIBUNAL IN S.M. NO. 99 OF 2003. EXT P2 : COPY OF THE PETITION AS I.A. NO. 96 OF 2009 IN A.A. NO. 50 OF 2006 ON THE FILE OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LR), ALAPPUZHA. EXT P3 : COPY OF THE PETITION AS I.A. NO. 97 OF 2009 IN A.A. NO. 50 OF 2006 ON THE FILE OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LR), ALAPPUZHA. EXT P4 : COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A. NO. 96 OF 2009 AND 97 OF 2009 IN A.A. NO. 50 OF 2006 ON THE FILE OF THE APPELLATE (LR) AUTHORITY, ALAPPUZHA. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE DMR/- THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).No.3334 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 16th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT In S.M.P.No.99 of 2003, the Land Tribunal allowed assignment of 16.19Ares of land in survey 436/7 in favour of respondents. Petitioners challenged that order before the Appellate Authority (LR), Alappuzha in A.A.No.50 of 2006. That appeal was dismissed for default on 26.11.2008. With a delay of 10 months and 10 days petitioner filed I.A.Nos.96 of 2009 and 97 of 2009 to restore the appeal and to condone the delay (in filing the appeal). Those applications were dismissed by the Appellate Authority as per Ext.P4, order dated 23.03.2011 for the reason that no sufficient cause is shown. Ext.P4, order is under challenge. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel that in Ext.P3, application petitioner had stated the reason for delay in filing I.A.Nos.96 and 97 of 2009. Learned counsel for respondents contended that even the appeal was preferred with delay of 194 days and to condone that delay, petitioner had filed I.A.No.70 of 2006. It is contended that there is no sufficient cause shown for the huge delay. O.P(C).No.3334 of 2011 -: 2 :- 3. So far as absence of counsel for petitioner on 26.11.2008 is concerned, in the affidavit in support of Ext.P2, application it is stated that petitioner was laid up due to heart disease. On account of traffic block, the junior advocate who was engaged by the petitioner's counsel could not appear before the Appellate Authority. In the affidavit in support of Ext.P2, application to condone the delay it is stated that petitioner was laid up due to heart problem on 26.11.2008 and was advised rest by the medical officer who treated petitioner. True that petitioner has not produce any document to prove the treatment. But, I must bear in mind that the delay involved is only 10 months and 10 days. Having regard to the circumstances stated, I am inclined to think that sufficient cause is shown by the petitioner in not filing I.A.Nos.96 and 97 of 2010 on time. 4. At the same time I must also bear in mind the inconvenience caused to the respondents by the delay. The S.M Proceedings are of the year 2003. In the circumstances, I am inclined to allow I.A.Nos.96 and 97 of 2009 on condition that petitioner paid Rs.1000/- by way of cost to the respondents (to be shared by them). O.P(C).No.3334 of 2011 -: 3 :- Resultantly this original petition will stand allowed and I.A.Nos.96 and 97 of 2009 in A.A.No.50 of 2006 of the Appellate Authority, Alappuzha will stand allowed on condition that petitioner paid to the counsel for respondents/deposited in this Court for such payment `.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) by way of cost within one month from this day. In case of failure to comply, this original petition will stand dismissed in confirmation of the order under challenge. (THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-