IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 20TH MAGHA 1931 CRP.No. 231 of 2008() --------------------- CMA.15/2006 of SUB COURT, PALA OS.359/1999 of MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE, ERATTUPETTA (IA.350/06 & 351/06) .................... PETITIONER(S): APPELLANTS IN CMA/PETITIONERS IN IA: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. V.K. SAJIKUMAR, S/O.KARUNAKARAN NAIR, VARAKAPPALLIL HOUSE, HOUSE NO.1/156A, BHARANANGANAM VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. USHAKUMARI, W/O. V.K.SAJIKUMAR -DO-DO-. BY ADVS. MR.N.SUBRAMANIAM, MR.M.S.NARAYANAN. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN IA: ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J ------------------------------------- C.R.P No.231 OF 2008 -------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of February 2010 ORDER Petitioners are the plaintiffs in a suit for declaration and for consequential reliefs. Suit was dismissed for default. As against the order dismissing the suit, on the basis of the decree drawn by the court, the petitioners preferred an appeal. That appeal was also dismissed for default. An application moved to restore the appeal dismissed for default under Order 41 Rule 19 of CPC with a petition to condone delay was also dismissed. Against that order, the petitioners preferred a revision before this court and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented in the case and noticing that no appeal was maintainable against the dismissal of a suit dismissed for default under Order 9 Rule 8 CPC this court directed the applicant to move an application, if so advised, under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC. Petitioners thereupon moved an application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC with a petition to condone delay of 2049 days. That delay petition after enquiry was dismissed, with the result the application moved for restoration of the suit stood rejected. Against that order, an appeal as provided under Order 43 of the CPC was preferred, which also was dismissed. Now the revision is against the concurrent decision rendered by the two inferior courts C.R.P No.231 OF 2008 Page numbers dismissing the application of the petitioners for restoring the suit, after condoning the delay, which had been dismissed for default. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find that the two inferior courts after appreciating and considering the questions involved have concurrently come to the conclusion that the petitioners/plaintiffs have not made out a case for condoning the inordinate delay in moving the application for restoring the suit. Both the courts have found that only up to the period the previous revision was considered and disposed by this court after dismissal of the suit for default can be condoned by invoking Section 14 of the Limitation Act. That is also a moot question since Section 14 of the Limitation Act can be invoked only in a case where it is established that the party applying such exemption has been bonafide prosecuting the suit or proceeding. Filing an incompetent appeal which is not provided by the Code will not enure to the benifit of the party to claim the exemption covered under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Whatever that be, the petitioners have not explained the delay subsequent to the disposal of the revision petition by this court. The delay after disposal of the revision has also not been C.R.P No.231 OF 2008 Page numbers explained. When that be so, the concurrent finding entered by both the courts below that the delay has not been properly explained by the petitioners is unassailable. There is no merit in the petition, and it is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv