IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 1789 of 2003()
1. M/S.ASSAMBROOK LTD
... Petitioner
Vs
1. P.SAIDU, PALLIYALIL
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE (SR.)
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :28/01/2011
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN,J.
...........................................
C.R.P.NO.1789 OF 2003
.............................................
Dated this the 28th day of January, 2011.
O R D E R
This revision is preferred against the order in
I.A.No.95/1999 in A.A.No.39/1999 of the Appellate authority,
Kannur. The revision petitioner is not a party to the SM
Proceedings 475/95. It is alleged that the first respondent
obtained a certificate of purchase showing the second
respondent as the landlord. The revision petitioner was not
made a party. The revision petitioner came to know about
the proceedings only when the said certificate of purchase
was produced in a suit for injunction filed by the 1st
respondent. Since the revision petitioner was not a party to
the proceedings and as he came to know about the
proceedings only belatedly, he had moved an application to
condone the delay in filing the appeal. The appellate authority
had stated that there is no explanation for the delay from
22.2.1999 to 8.3.1999 and from 18.3.1999 to 13.4.1999 and
therefore dismissed the delay petition and also the appeal.
2. It is clear that the revision petitioner is not a party
: 2 :
C.R.P.NO.1789 OF 2003
before the Land Tribunal. A certificate of purchase is
obtained by the first respondent against the second
respondent in the appeal. It is also a settled principle of law
that unless there is a personal notice as contemplated
under Section 72F(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, that
will not be binding on the person who is not served with
notice.
3. Here the revision petitioner is not even a party to
the proceedings. So far as condonation of delay is concerned,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court had laid down the principles to
be followed in the celebrated decision reported in Collector,
Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji (AIR 1987 SC
1353). The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “when
substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted
against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to
be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested
right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate
delay”. It was also cautioned that “it must be grasped that
judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize
injustice on technical grounds, but because it is capable of
: 3 :
C.R.P.NO.1789 OF 2003
removing injustice and is expected to do so”.
4. Here is a case where a certificate that produced
had been obtained behind the back of the revision petitioner
and from the date of knowledge, the appeal is seen preferred
within 40 or 50 days. Therefore the appellate authority
was incorrect in dismissing the application to condone the
delay. There are grounds to condone the delay. Therefore
the appeal is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is
condoned and the Appellate Authority is directed to restore
the appeal to file, send notice to the parties and dispose of
the matter in accordance with law.
The revision is disposed of accordingly.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
cl
: 4 :
C.R.P.NO.1789 OF 2003
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
…………………………………….
C.R.P.NO.1789 OF 2003
………………………………………
28th January, 2011.
O R D E R