Kerala High Court
Thressia vs Rosamma on 5 February, 2025
1
2025:KER:9250
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 16TH MAGHA, 1946
FAO NO. 18 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 05.10.2024 IN AS NO.26 OF 2024 OF
DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,THODUPUZHA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 AND 7 TO 21/RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 AND 7 TO 21:
1 THRESSIA
AGED 82 YEARS
D/O. LATE FRENCHU AND W/O. JAMES @ JACOB,
CHARALIYIL (CHEMBALYIL) HOUSE, THODUPUZHA EAST P.O.,
MUTHALIYAR MADAM BHAGAM, KARIKODE VILLAGE,
THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER GRACY JOHNY,
AGED 67 YEARS, W/O. JOHNY, PONKALINKAL HOUSE,
VENGACHUVADU, MANJALLOOR,
MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 685585
2 SUNNY
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O. STEPHEN, CHARALIYIL HOUSE,
THODUPUZHA EAST P.O., MUTHALIYAR MADAM BHAGAM,T
HODUPUZHA EAS POSTAL LIMIT, KARIKODE VILLAGE,
THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685585
3 GRACY
AGED 67 YEARS
D/O. STEPHEN, CHARALIYIL HOUSE, THODUPUZHA EAST P.O.,
MUTHALIYAR MADAM BHAGAM, THODUPUZHA EAST POSTAL LIMIT,
KARIKODE VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA,
NOW RESIDING AT PONKALLIL HOUSE, VENGACHUVADU,
MANJALLOOR, MUVATTUPUZHA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686670
4 MONIKA
AGED 85 YEARS
W/O. MANI, KOCHUMUTHAKAMPURATH HOUSE,
THODUPUZHA KARA, THODUPUZHA VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK,
IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685585
5 BABY
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O. MANI, KOCHUMUTHAKAMPURATH HOUSE, THODUPUZHA KARA,
THODUPUZHA VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK,
IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685585
2
FAO NO. 18 OF 2025 2025:KER:9250
6 JAISON
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O. MANI, KOCHUMUTHAKAMPURATH HOUSE, THODUPUZHA KARA,
THODUPUZHA VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK,
IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685585
7 JUSTIN
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O. MANI, KOCHUMUTHAKAMPURATH HOUSE, THODUPUZHA KARA,
THODUPUZHA VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK,
IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685585
8 GRACY
AGED 63 YEARS
D/O. MANI, KOCHUMUTHAKAMPURATH HOUSE, THODUPUZHA KARA,
THODUPUZHA VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK,
IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685585
9 SILVI
AGED 55 YEARS
D/O. MANI, KOCHUMUTHAKAMPURATH HOUSE, THODUPUZHA KARA,
THODUPUZHA VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK,
IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685585
10 MARY
AGED 73 YEARS
W/O. CHACKO, MEEMPILLIL HOUSE, KOTHAMANGALAM P.O.,
KOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686691
11 GRACY FRANCIS
AGED 78 YEARS
PALLIKKUNNEL HOUSE, EZHUMATTOM P.O., KARIMANNOOR VILLAGE,
THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MARY CHACKO,
AGED 79 YEARS, MEEMPILIL HOUSE, MALAYINKEEZHU,
KOTHAMANGALAM P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-, PIN - 686691
12 AUGUSTINE
AGED 74 YEARS
S/O. CHACKO, PALLIKKUNNEL HOUSE, EZHUMATTOM P.O.,
KARIMANNOOR VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK,
IDUKKI DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
MARY CHACKO, AGED 79 YEARS, MEEMPILIL HOUSE,
MALAYINKEEZHU, KOTHAMANGALAM P.O.,
KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686691
13 FRANCIS @ SUNNY
AGED 73 YEARS
S/O. CHACKO, PALLIKKUNNEL HOUSE,
3
FAO NO. 18 OF 2025 2025:KER:9250
EZHUMATTOM P.O., KARIMANNOOR VILLAGE,
THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MARY CHACKO,
AGED 79 YEARS, MEEMPILIL HOUSE, MALAYINKEEZHU,
KOTHAMANGALAM P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686691
14 JOHNSON @ JOHN
AGED 71 YEARS
S/O. CHACKO, PALLIKKUNNEL HOUSE, EZHUMATTOM P.O.,
KARIMANNOOR VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MARY CHACKO,
AGED 79 YEARS, MEEMPILIL HOUSE, MALAYINKEEZHU,
KOTHAMANGALAM P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686691
15 GEORGE
AGED 67 YEARS
S/O. CHACKO, PALLIKKUNNEL HOUSE, EZHUMATTOM P.O.,
KARIMANNOOR VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MARY CHACKO,
AGED 79 YEARS, MEEMPILIL HOUSE, MALAYINKEEZHU,
KOTHAMANGALAM P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686691
16 JOSY @ JOSE
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O. CHACKO, PALLIKKUNNEL HOUSE, EZHUMATTOM P.O.,
KARIMANNOOR VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MARY CHACKO,
AGED 79 YEARS, MEEMPILIL HOUSE, MALAYINKEEZHU,
KOTHAMANGALAM P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686691
17 BABY RANI MOHAN FRANCIS
AGED 63 YEARS
D/O. CHACKO @ AUGUSTHY CHACKO, PALLIKKUNNEL HOUSE,
EZHUMATTOM P.O., KARIMANNOOR VILLAGE,
THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT ,
REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MARY CHACKO,
AGED 79 YEARS, MEEMPILIL HOUSE, MALAYINKEEZHU,
KOTHAMANGALAM P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686691
18 MERLY ANTONY
AGED 62 YEARS
D/O. CHACKO, PALLIKKUNNEL HOUSE, EZHUMATTOM P.O.,
KARIMANNOOR VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK,
IDUKKI DISTRICT - REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
MARY CHACKO, AGED 79 YEARS, MEEMPILIL HOUSE,
MALAYINKEEZHU, KOTHAMANGALAM P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686691
4
FAO NO. 18 OF 2025 2025:KER:9250
BY ADV K.A.AUGUSTINE
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS:
1 ROSAMMA
AGED 79 YEARS
W/O. AUGASTHY, CHARALIYIL HOUSE,
KOCHUMUTHANKAMPURATH HOUSE, THODUPUZHA KARA,
THODUPUZHA VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK,
IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685584
2 LOULY AUGUSTINE
AGED 53 YEARS
D/O. AUGASTHY, THOTTUNGAL HOUSE,
KANJOOR, KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 683575
3 LESLY @ JIJIN
AGED 49 YEARS
D/O. AUGASTHY, CHARALIYIL VELIYATH HOUSE,
VAZHAKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686670
THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
5
FAO NO. 18 OF 2025 2025:KER:9250
SYAM KUMAR V.M., J.
-------------------------------------
FAO No. 18 of 2025
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 05th day of February, 2025
JUDGMENT
This first appeal challenges the order dated 05.10.2024
in I.A. No. 1 of 2024 in A.S. No. 26 of 2024 of the District Court,
Thodupuzha.
2. Appellants were the respondents 2 to 4 and 7 to 21
in the said I.A. and the respondents were the petitioners
therein.
3. I.A. No. 1 of 2024 was filed seeking to condone the
21 days delay in filing the above A.S. The District Court, vide
the impugned order had condoned the said delay of 21 days
on terms.
4. This appeal is filed by the appellant aggrieved by
the said condonation of delay. It is contended that there
existed no justifiable or legally tenable reason for condoning
the delay and that the District Court ought to have dismissed
the delay condonation petition outright.
FAO NO. 18 OF 2025 2025:KER:9250
5. Heard Sri. K.A. Augustine, Advocate, appearing for
the appellants.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the
appeal has been filed only to harass his clients many of whom
are senior citizens beyond the age of 80 years. The delay of 21
days in filing the appeal ought to have been validly explained
by the respondents. The purported reason stated for the delay
is that the certified copy of the preliminary decree issued from
the court registry had been misplaced somewhere in the house
of the respondents and it was not traceable as repair works
were on in the residence. The certified copy was later retrieved
from a bundle of papers after a few days. This caused a delay
in contacting the lawyer and taking steps towards filing of the
appeal.
7. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the
reason stated for the delay is most perfunctory and baseless.
No material has been produced to substantiate the same and
the learned District Judge ought not have accepted the said
reason and condoned the delay. It is mandatory that every
day's delay ought to be explained with a valid reason. The
reason stated is only concocted and unsubstantiated. There is
FAO NO. 18 OF 2025 2025:KER:9250
negligence, delay and laches on the part of the respondents
in filing the appeal. The learned District Judge ought to have
found that the delay had not been properly explained and for
the said reasons should have dismissed the delay condonation
petition.
8. It is noted note that the District Court had taken
into consideration of the contents of the affidavit and had
concluded that there exist sufficient reasons to believe that
the cause stated for the delay is genuine. It has been further
stated by the District Judge that a lenient view could be taken
and the delay of 21 days in filing the appeal is to be condoned
subject to the payment of a cost of Rs. 210/- to the District
Legal Services Authority.
9. Though I find force in the contention put forth by
Advocate Sri. K.A. Augustine that there has been no day-to-day
explanation of the delay that has been occasioned, in the facts
and circumstances of this case, there is no reason to interfere
with the condonation of 21 days delay by the District Court
which is based on terms as stated above. Further, it is trite
that justice is better served when a matter is decided on
merits rather than on default. Hence I see no valid and tenable
FAO NO. 18 OF 2025 2025:KER:9250
reason to interfere with the order dated 05.10.2024 in I.A. No.1
of 2024 rendered by the District Court.
10. However, I note that most of the appellants are
senior citizens. Given their advanced age, many of whom are
above 80, there exists an exceptional circumstance justifying a
direction to the District Court, Thodupuzha, to endeavor to
hear and dispose of A.S. No. 26 of 2024 pending before it as
expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six
months.
FAO is dismissed. No costs. All interlocutory applications
stand closed.
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V. M.
JUDGE
NJ
FAO NO. 18 OF 2025 2025:KER:9250
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A-1 TRUE COPY OF I.A. NO. 1/2024 IN A.S. NO. 26/2024,
OF DISTRICT COURT, THODUPUZHA
