Kerala High Court
Sunny Kuriakose (Died) vs State Of Kerala on 24 March, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
Monday, the 24th day of March 2025 / 3rd Chaithra, 1947
CM.APPL.NO.1/2024 IN LA.APP. NO. 20 OF 2024
LAR 18/2017 OF SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR
---
APPLICANTS/APPELLANTS:
1. SUNNY KURIAKOSE (DIED) AGED 83 YEARS, 50/368, KACHIRAMATTAM HOUSE,
MANIMALA ROAD, EDAPALLY, KOCHI - 682024.
2. JOAN SUNNY, AGED 80 YEARS, LEGAL HEIR, W/O LATE SUNNY KURIAKOSE,
50/368, KACHIRAMATTAM HOUSE, MANIMALA ROAD, EDAPALLY, KOCHI- 682024.
3. KURIAN, AGED 56 YEARS ,LEGAL HEIR, S/O LATE SUNNY KURIAKOSE, 50/368,
KACHIRAMATTAM HOUSE, MANIMALA ROAD, EDAPALLY, KOCHI- 682024.
4. MANUEL KACHIRAMATTAM, AGED 53 YEARS, LEGAL HEIR, S/O LATE SUNNY
KURIAKOSE, 50/368, KACHIRAMATTAM HOUSE, MANIMALA ROAD, EDAPALLY,
KOCHI - 682024.
5. AUGUSTINE KACHIRAMATTAM, AGED 53 YEARS, LEGAL HEIR, S/O LATE SUNNY
KURIAKOSE, 50/368, KACHIRAMATTAM HOUSE, MANIMALA ROAD, EDAPALLY,
KOCHI - 682024.
6. JOHN KACHIRAMATTAM, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O LATE SUNNY KURIAKOSE, 50/368,
KACHIRAMATTAM HOUSE,MANIMALA ROAD, EDAPALLY, KOCHI- 682024.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1. STATE OF KERALA ,REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,ERNAKULAM
-682030.
2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, INFOPARK , KUSUMAGIRI,KAKKANAD -
682030.
Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the
affidavit filed therewith the High Court be pleased to condone the delay
of 673 days in filing the appeal in the interest of justice.
This Application coming on for orders upon perusing the application
and the affidavit filed in support thereof, and upon hearing the arguments
of M/S. T.R.S.KUMAR, DEENA JOSEPH, DEEPA R MENON, AKSHAY JOSEPH ADHIKARAM,
SONA MARIA PAULOSE & AMRUTHA PREMJITH, Advocates for the Applicants,
SMT.REKHA C.NAIR, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent 1 and of
M/S.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, K.JOHN MATHAI, JOSON MANAVALAN, KURYAN THOMAS,
PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM & RAJA KANNAN, Advocates for the Respondent 2, the
court passed the following:
P.T.O.
1
SYAM KUMAR V.M., J.
------------------------------------------
L.A.App. No. 20 of 2024
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of March, 2025
ORDER
The petitioner/appellant has filed this delay condonation
petition to condone the delay of 673 days in filing the appeal.
2. The reason for the delay stated in the affidavit
accompanying the petition is that the petitioner's father
Sri.Sunny Kuriakose, who had been conducting the L.A.R.
passed away after a prolonged illness on 10.01.2021 and
during the period of illness, he could not communicate with his
wife and children. After his demise, it was only on 01.06.2023
that the address of the lawyer engaged by late Sunny
Kuriakose could be identified and steps could be taken to file
the L.A.A. An additional affidavit has also been filed further
explaining the causes for the delay. It has been stated that
delay had been occasioned on the part of the clerk of the
advocate who had been conducting the case before the trial
court. It is reiterated that the family had been passing through
a difficult time after the death of the father, they could not take
steps at the proper time.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 2 nd
respondent inter alia pointing out that no sufficient reason to
condone the delay is disclosed from the affidavits filed
supporting the delay condonation petition. It is also contended
that there has been inordinate delay, laches and negligence
on the part of the appellant in preferring the appeal in time.
An additional counter affidavit has also been filed by the 2 nd
respondent to the additional affidavit of the petitioner.
4. Heard Sri.T.R.S.Kumar, Advocate appearing for the
petitioner, Smt.Rekha C.Nair, learned Senior Government
Pleader on behalf of the 1st respondent and Sri.M.Gopikrishnan
Nambiar, learned counsel on behalf of the 2nd respondent.
5. The learned counsel relied on the dictum laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Y.P. Lele v. Maharashtra State
Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (2023 SCC OnLine SC
997), Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another
v. Mst. Katiji & ors [(1987) 2 SCC 107], Esha Bhattacharjee
v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar
Academy and others [(2013) 12 SCC 649] and that of this
Court in Robin George v. Sebastian P. Varghese [2022 (1)
KLT 175]. Based on the said judgments, it is argued that the
expression sufficient cause employed by the legislature on
Order IX Rule 13 CPC is adequately elastic to enable the courts
to apply the law in a meaningful manner, which subserves the
ends of justice that is the life purpose for the existence of the
institution of courts.
6. Per contra the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent
requisitioning authority vehemently opposed the petition filed
seeking to condone the delay, placing reliance on the dictum
laid down in Pathapati Subba Reddy (died) by LRs v.
Special Deputy Commissioner (LA) [2024 SCC Online SC
513] and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar
Choudhary [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3612].
7. Though I do not find the reasons stated for seeking
condonation of delay fit to be termed as fully explaining out the
delay occasioned, the facts and circumstances of the case
reveal that a reference had been initiated and it had been
pursued up till a judgment and the person in charge of conduct
of the same had passed away after prolonged illness before an
appeal could be filed. The larger premise that it is always
preferable in the interest of substantial justice that a matter be
decided on merits rather than the default weighs with me to
hold that the I.A can be allowed, albeit on terms. The delay of
673 days shall accordingly stand condoned on condition that
the petitioner remit an amount of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two
Thousand Five Hundred only) to the Kerala State Legal Services
Authority, Ernakulam, and produce receipt thereof. Upon such
production of the receipt, the delay shall stand condoned.
However, in case of enhancement, if any, the petitioner shall
not be entitled to interest and other statutory benefits for the
said period of delay.
C.M.Application is allowed as above.
Allowed.
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V. M.
JUDGE
NJ
24-03-2025 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
