High Court Kerala High Court

Development Commissi0Ner vs Annie Joseph Vallamattam on 14 January, 2009

Kerala High Court
Development Commissi0Ner vs Annie Joseph Vallamattam on 14 January, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRP.No. 838 of 2008()


1. DEVELOPMENT COMMISSI0NER,COCHIN EXPORT
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. ANNIE JOSEPH VALLAMATTAM, VALLAMATTAMS,
                       ...       Respondent

2. V.J.KURIAN VALLAMATTAM, ADVOCATE,

3. V.M.KURIAN, ADVOCATE, VALLAMATTAMS,

4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.MOHAN C.MENON

                For Respondent  :SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN

 Dated :14/01/2009

 O R D E R
              K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J.
          ------------------------------------------------
              C. M. Appl. No.1041 of 2008 &
                  C. R. P. No.838 of 2008
          ------------------------------------------------
          Dated this the 14th day of January, 2009

                            ORDER

This is an application seeking

condonation of delay of as much as 250 days in

filing the C.R.P. The impugned order is one

passed on 26/09/07 on E.P.219/03 in

L.A.R.450/1988 wherein the petitioner was the

second judgment debtor. Though order was

passed on 26/09/07, copy was applied for only

on 24/11/07, after about two months. Stamp

papers called for on 16/01/08 were produced on

21/01/08 and though copy was ready and

14/02/08 was fixed as the date to appear to

receive copy, copy was taken delivery of only

on 12/11/08. The delay sought to be explained

(though not satisfactory) is only the delay in

submitting copy application. There is

absolutely no explanation in the affidavit

C. M. Appl. No.1041 of 2008 &
C. R. P. No.838 of 2008 -2-

accompanying the C.M. Application as to why no

enquiry was made as to whether the copy was

ready and copy was taken delivery of only on

12/11/08, almost after nine months of the date

fixed to receive the copy. In the

circumstances, there is no reason or just and

sufficient cause to condone the delay of 250

days in filing the C.R.P. This C.M.

Application is hence, dismissed. Consequently,

the C.R.P also stands dismissed.

K.P.BALACHANDRAN,
JUDGE
kns/-