Kerala High Court
Mammu vs The State Of Kerala on 15 July, 2021
LA.App. No.42/2021 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
Thursday, the 15th day of July 2021 / 24th Ashadha, 1943
CMA.NO.1/2021 IN LA.APP. NO. 42 OF 2021
LAR 203/2011 OF SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR
PETITIONER/APPELLANT(CLAIMANT):
MAMMU, S/O KHADIR,MATTATHIL HOUSE, BRAHMAPURAM P.O., PUTHENCRUZ
VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT
MATTATHIL HOUSE, ADIKARIMOOLA, BRAHMAPURAM P.O., PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 565.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM - 682
030.
2. THE KOCHI CORPORATION, PARK AVENUE, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY PIN - 682 011.
Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the
affidavit filed therewith the High Court be pleased to condone the delay
of 2077 ( two thousand and seventy seven) days in filing the above appeal.
This Application coming on for orders upon perusing the application
and the affidavit filed in support thereof, and upon hearing the arguments
of VARGHESE K.PAUL, SRI.PETER KURIAN, SMT.AMMU TERESA, Advocates for the
petitioner and of the GOVERNMENT PLEADER, for the ISTrespondent AND
STANDING COUNSEL FOR2ND RESPONDENT, the court passed the following:
LA.App. No.42/2021 2/5
C.S.DIAS, J.
----------------------
L.A.A.No.42 of 2021
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of July, 2021
ORDER
C.M.Appl.No.1 of 2021
This is an application filed to condone 2,077 days' delay in
filing the appeal. The petitioner has filed an affidavit in support
of this application stated that even though the claim petition was
decreed on 29.11.2014 and certified copy of the decree and
judgment was applied on 21.05.2015, the petitioner was
suffering from heart disease and was undergoing treatment at
the Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam. Due to his ailment he
was not in a position to meet his lawyer. It is after he recovered,
he met his lawyer and instructed him to file the appeal. He was
then informed that he would pay the court fee. Thereafter, the
COVID-19 pandemic broke out and the petitioner was unable to
file the appeal. Hence the delay occurred.
2. The application is vehemently opposed by the learned
Government Pleader who submitted that the appeal is only an
experimental litigation. The petitioner has already obtained the
LA.App. No.42/2021 3/5
L.A.A.No.42 of 2021
:-2-:
decreetal amount as ordered by the reference court. There is no
merit in the application, which may be dismissed.
3. The law in respect of condonation of delay is well
settled in a plethora of decision.
4. In Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr v.
Katiji & Ors [(1987) 2 SCC 107], the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held that the expression 'sufficient cause' is adequately
elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful
manner which sub-serves the ends of justice and that a liberal
approach has to be adopted while dealing with applications for
condonation of delay.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Aroma
Chemical Industries Ltd v. Gujarat Industrial Development
Corporation and Another [ (2010) 5 SCC 459] has held that
Court shall adopt a liberal approach in condoning the delay of
short duration and a stricter approach where the delay is
inordinate.
6. Therefore, it is by now trite that a case has to be
decided on merits, after giving the parties an opportunity of
LA.App. No.42/2021 4/5
L.A.A.No.42 of 2021
:-3-:
being heard, rather than dismissing the same on technicalities or
default, but a stricter approach has to be adopted when there is
inordinate delay.
7. The petitioner has conceded to the fact that he was
aware of the passing of the judgment and decree as early as on
29.11.2014. The reasons that have been put forth for the
inordinate delay was that he was laid up and that he did not have
the financial means to prefer the appeal within the stipulated
period.
8. Although the reasons stated in the affidavit in support
of the application are not convincing and satisfactory, considering
the ratio in the afore-cited decisions, I am of the considered
opinion that a stricter approach can be adopted in the present
matter due to the inordinate delay, by directing the petitioner to
pay a reasonable amount as costs, which would tide over the
hardship and prejudice caused to the respondents.
In the result, I allow the application on the following
conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall deposit/pay an amount of
LA.App. No.42/2021 5/5
L.A.A.No.42 of 2021
:-4-:
Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as costs to the 1st
respondent/learned Government Pleader appearing for
the 1st respondent before this Court, within a period of
three weeks from today and file a memo to the effect.
(ii) Only if the memo is filed within the prescribed
time, the application will stand allowed and the delay
will stand condoned, otherwise, the application will
stand dismissed.
(iii) If ultimately the appeal is allowed in favour of
the petitioner, he would be dis-entitled for interest for a
period of 2,077 days.
(iv) Post the appeal after three weeks.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS
JUDGE
ami/
15-07-2021 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
