IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2011 / 23RD POUSHA 1932 SA.No. 659 of 1997() ----------------------------- AS.5/1995 of SUB COURT, KOYILANDY OS.184/1992 of MUNSIFF COURT, KOYILANDY .................... APPELLANT(S): ---------------------- PROJECT OFFICER, DISTRICT KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES OFFICE, KOZHIKODE BY ADVS. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM SRI.B.G.BHASKAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. K.K.DEVI, D/O.PENNUTTY AMMA “SREEDESH”, MOODADI AMSOM DESOM. 2. SECRETARY, KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR KOYILANDY BY THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- SA No.659 of 1997-C ------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of January 2011 Judgment The second defendant in OS No.184/92 before the Munsiff's Court, Quilandy is the appellant. The parties and facts are hereinafter referred to as they are available before the trial court. 2. The dispute between the parties centered round the financial facility availed of by the plaintiff from the defendant in the suit. According to the plaintiff, the second defendant had not released the amount due to her, but still they chose to recover the entire amount from her by resorting to revenue recovery proceedings. She, therefore, challenged the revenue recovery proceedings before the Munsiff's court, Quilandy. 3. The second defendant resisted the suit by pointing out that amounts were, in fact, due from the plaintiff and she had no cause of action against the second SA No.659/97 2 defendant. An amount of Rs.22,150/- was sanctioned as financial facility to the plaintiff. The working capital was not released to the plaintiff as she was not able to produce sufficient security for the same. On the above grounds, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. On the above pleadings, necessary issues were raised by the trial court. The evidence consists of the documents marked as Exts.A1 to A15 from the side of the plaintiff and Exts.B1 to B8 from the side of the defendants. The trial court was of the view that some of the instalments which were sought to be recovered, were barred by limitation and revenue recovery proceedings could not be resorted to in respect of those instalments. However, liberty was given to the defendants to proceed against the plaintiff for recovery of the amount which they can, in law, recover from the plaintiff. 5. It appears that the second defendant carried the matter in appeal before the Sub Court, Quilandy as AS No.5/95. Since the appeal had been filed out of time, he SA No.659/97 3 filed a petition for condonation of delay of 29 days. The appellate court dismissed the delay condonation petition and consequently, the appeal also. Hence the second appeal. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the lower appellate court was not justified in dismissing the delay condonation petition without assigning proper reasons. It was pointed out that the delay was due to administrative reasons and there was no wilful laches or negligence on the part of the second defendant in not filing the appeal within the stipulated time. It has to be noticed that it was public money that was involved in the case and at least that fact should have been taken into consideration in doing justice to the parties. It was also pointed out that the trial court was not justified in holding that some of the instalments were barred by limitation. It also omitted to note that there was a mortgage offered by the plaintiff. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant is well founded in his submissions. The delay was of only 29 days. SA No.659/97 4 As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, public money was involved in the matter. It is also doubtful whether the findings of the trial court are legally sustainable. At any rate, the appellant ought to have been given an opportunity to have his case decided on merits. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree are set aside and the matter is remanded to the lower appellate court. The lower appellate court shall dispose of the matter in accordance with law and in the light of what is stated above. The parties shall appear before the lower appellate court on 29.02.2011. The lower appellate court shall make every endeavour to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of appearance of parties. P.Bhavadasan, Judge sta SA No.659/97 5 SA No.659/97 6