Corporation Of Cochin vs A.M.Mohammed Ali on 3 February, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA.No. 133 of 2009()


1. CORPORATION OF COCHIN,REPRESENTED BY
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. A.M.MOHAMMED ALI, RESIDING AT
                       ...       Respondent

2. A.M.MAMMU, -DO-       -DO-

3. A.M.AYSHAMMA,  -DO-       -DO-

4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS

5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,ERNAKULAM.

6. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, ERNAKULAM.

7. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(LA),COCHIN

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN

The Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice MR.J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI

 Dated :03/02/2009

 O R D E R
              J.B. KOSHY, Ag.C.J. &
                       V.GIRI, J.
         -------------------------
              C.M.Application No.73 of 2009
                 & W.A.No.133 of 2009
         -------------------------
          Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2009.


                      JUDGMENT

Koshy, Ag.C.J.

C.M.Application No.73 of 2009 is a petition

to condone the long delay of 2289 days in filing the

writ appeal. The judgment in the writ petition was

pronounced on 17.7.2002. Certified copy was applied

only on 03.11.2008. Absolutely no valid grounds are

offered for the filing of such a delayed appeal. One

of the reasons stated is that the writ petitioners

were directed to produce an accurate and correct

sketch and till the filing of the writ appeal, no

sketch was produced by the writ petitioners. According

to the petitioners, a sketch was already produced. The

Corporation can also get the land surveyed and if,

according to the Corporation, the sketch produced by

the writ petitioners was not legible, the Corporation

could have got a sketch prepared from the department.

In any event, no valid grounds are given for condoning

the delay of 2289 days in filing the appeal. Only when

W.A.No.133 of 2009

:: 2 ::

the Contempt of Court Case is filed, as a disguise,

this appeal is filed. We see no reason to condone the

delay. C.M.Application No.73 of 2009 is accordingly

dismissed.

2. It is now reported that the 3rd respondent

has died. But since there is no dispute between the 3rd

respondent and other contesting respondents, she is

not a necessary party and hence there is no necessity

to implead her legal representatives in this appeal.

Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.

Sd/-

(J.B. KOSHY)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

(V.GIRI)
JUDGE
sk/
//true copy//

P.S. to Judge