Kerala High Court
Dishida.K vs Naduvannur Regional Co-Operative Bank on 28 October, 2025
W.A.No.1936 of 2023
: 1 :-
2025:KER:80415
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1947
WA NO. 1936 OF 2023
(AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 01.08.2022 IN WP(C)
NO.6291 OF 2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA)
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 6,7,10 * 11 IN WP(C):
1 DISHIDA.K.,
AGED 47 YEARS
ATTENDER, NADUVANNUR REGIONAL CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD,
NO. F. 1269, NADUVANNUR P.O., KOZHIKODE 673 614.
2 DHANYA.J. NAIR,
AGED 42 YEARS
ATTENDER, NADUVANNUR REGIONAL CO OPERATIVE BANK, LTD.
NO. F. 1269, NADUVANNUR P.O., KOZHIKODE 673 614.
3 JAYALEKSHMI,
AGED 44 YEARS
PEON/ATTENDER, NADUVANNUR REGIONAL CO OPERATIVE BANK,
LTD. NO. F. 1269, NADUVANNUR P.O., KOZHIKODE 673 614.
4 BINI K.K.,
AGED 41 YEARS
DTP OPERATOR, NADUVANNUR REGIONAL CO OPERATIVE BANK,
LTD. NO. F. 1269, NADUVANNUR P.O., KOZHIKODE 673 614.
BY ADVS.
ADV.NAVANEETH KRISHNAN
SMT.NISHA GEORGE
SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
SMT.KAVYA VARMA M. M.
W.A.No.1936 of 2023
: 2 :-
2025:KER:80415
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5,8,9,12 & 13 & PETITIOENRS IN WP(C):
1 NADUVANNUR REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK
LTD. NO. F. 1269, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, NADUVANNUR
P.O., KOZHIKODE 673 614.
2 MANAGING COMMITTEE OF NADUVANNUR,
REGIONAL CO - OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO. F. 1269,
REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT, NADUVANNUR P.O., KOZHIKODE
673 614.
3 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
(GENERAL),
OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES, PUTHIYARA, KOZHIKODE 673 004.
4 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO -OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES (GENERAL), OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF
CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, PUTHIYARA, KOZHIKODE 673 004.
5 CO-OPERTIVE ARBITRATION CORUT (NORTHERN),
KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE
P.O., 673 001.
6 JARESH.N.K.,
ATTENDER, NADUVANNUR REGIONAL CO OPERATIVE BANK, LTD.
NO. F. 1269, NADUVANNUR P.O., KOZHIKODE 673 614.
7 MAHESH.N.,
PEON/ATTENDER, NADUVANNUR REGIONAL CO OPERATIVE BANK,
LTD. NO. F. 1269, NADUVANNUR P.O., KOZHIKODE 673 614.
8 SUDHEESH,
SALESMAN, NADUVANNUR REGIONAL CO OPERATIVE BANK, LTD.
NO. F. 1269, NADUVANNUR P.O., KOZHIKODE 673 614.
9 DASMI,
PART TIME SWEEPER, NADUVANNUR REGIONAL CO OPERATIVE
BANK, LTD. NO. F. 1269, NADUVANNUR P.O., KOZHIKODE 673
614.
0 UMMER ANSARI,
AGED 38 YEARS
MEMBER NO. 17283, THAYULLATHIL HOUSE, NADUVANNUR P.O.,
KOZHIKODE 673 614.
W.A.No.1936 of 2023
: 3 :-
2025:KER:80415
11 SARATH J.S,
LAKSHMI NIVAS, NADUVANNUR P.O., KOZHIKODE 673 614.
12 RINU. A.S.,
KURUNGOTTUPOYIL, NADUVANNUR P.O., KOZHIKODE 673 614.
BY ADV SHRI.P.N.MOHANAN (R1 & R2)
ADV.SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE (R3-R5)
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
25.10.2025, THE COURT ON 28.10.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.1936 of 2023
: 4 :-
2025:KER:80415
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,
&
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,JJ.
-------------------------------------
W.A. No. 1936 of 2023
---------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of October 2025
JUDGMENT
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,J
C.M.A.No.1 of of 2023
This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to
condone the delay of 431 days in filing the writ appeal.
2. The reasons stated by the applicants, for condoning the delay,
in the affidavit filed along with the application and in the additional
affidavit dated 07.10.2025 filed by them, in brief, are as follows;
The judgment in the writ petition was rendered by the learned
Single Judge on 01.08.2022 and the appeal ought to have been filed on
or before 31.08.2022. The applicants were usually intimated about the
pendency of the writ petition by the clerk attached to the office of the
previous counsel. But, when there was no update regarding the
outcome of the writ petition, the applicants made enquires and came to
know about the disposal of the writ petition. The applicants thus came
to know about the impugned judgment only in the month of October,
2023. Thereafter, the present counsel of the applicants was engaged,
: 5 :-
2025:KER:80415
the online application for certified copy of the judgment was submitted
on 03.11.2023 and after obtaining the same, the appeal was filed. The
delay in filing the appeal is hence not willful, intentional and deliberate.
3. Heard Adv. Kavya Varma M.M, the learned counsel appearing for
the applicants, Adv.P.N.Mohanan, the learned counsel appearing for
Respondents 11 and 12 and Adv. P.P.Jacob, the learned counsel
appearing for respondents 1 and 2.
4. As stated earlier, this application is filed by the applicants, who
are the 6th,7th ,10th & 11th respondents in the writ petition, to condone
the delay of 431 days in filing the appeal. The records show that this
Court while considering the delay petition on 29.09.2025, found that the
delay of 431 days is sought to be explained in a single line, by stating
that the disposal of the writ petition was not intimated to the applicants.
This Court, after considering the fact that various facilities have now
been extended to the advocates and the litigants, such as online access
to proceedings, uploading the orders and such other electronic facilities
for tracking the matter, found that adequate explanation is not offered
by the appellants, and granted further time to file an additional affidavit.
Accordingly, an affidavit dated 07.10.2025 has been placed on record by
the applicants.
5. But, on going through the said affidavit, we are of the
: 6 :-
2025:KER:80415
considered view that the same does not, in any manner, improve the
situation. The additional affidavit is also very vague, sans details and it
again reiterates that it is because of the fact that the applicants came to
know about the impugned judgment (dated 01.08.2022), only in the
month of October 2023, the delay had occurred in filing the appeal. As
found by this Court on 29.09.2025, the said reason does not offer an
adequate explanation. It is to be taken note that this appeal has been
filed by four among the respondents in the writ petition and it cannot be
believed at all that, all of them did not pursue the proceedings in the
writ petition and that all of them came to know about the judgment
passed in it, only in the month of October 2023. Even if the version of
the applicants is true, it only reflects the lackadaisical and callous
approach of the applicants in prosecuting the case.
6. It is true that a delay petition has to be considered liberally and
pragmatically. But, at the same time it is also the law that the approach
should be reasonable and inordinate delay, should be viewed strictly,
since the doctrine of prejudice is attracted. It is also the law that a
person, who seeks condonation of delay, must explain each days delay
and such explanation for the delay must be reasonable and not an
excuse. Furthermore, it is the law that, carelessness or negligence on
the part of the lawyer concerned, by itself, cannot be a ground to
: 7 :-
2025:KER:80415
condone a long and inordinate delay as the litigant owes a duty to be
vigilant of his own rights and is expected to be equally vigilant about the
judicial proceedings pending. The litigant should not be permitted to
throw the entire blame on the head of the Advocate or his clerk and
thereby, disown them at any time and seek the relief. In case a party is
found to be negligent or for want of bona fide on his part or is found to
have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a
justified ground to condone the delay [See Basawaraj and Another v.
Special Land Acquisition Officer (2013 (14) SCC 81),
Anandavalliyamma and Others v. Kerala Housing Finance Ltd.,
Kozhencherry (ILR 2023 (1) Ker. 666) and Pathumuthubeevi v.
Aminal Beevi (2025 (1) KHC 676)].
7. If so, in the light of the afore discussions, we are of the view that
the reasons stated by the applicants do not make out a sufficient cause
for condoning the inordinate delay of 431 days in filing the writ appeal.
Ergo, this CM Application is dismissed.
As a consequence, the W.A. No.1936 of 2023 also stands
dismissed. Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
Judge
Sd/-
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN
dpk Judge
