IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 103 of 2004()
1. VIJAYAN S/O.NARAYANAN, AGED 42 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :11/06/2010
O R D E R
THOMAS P JOSEPH, J.
----------------------------------------
C.R.P.No. 103 of 2004
---------------------------------------
Dated this 11th day of June, 2010
ORDER
Including the case on hand there were ten reference cases
arising from the same notification claiming enhanced land value.
All the cases except the one on hand were disposed of by the
learned Sub Judge allowing enhanced land value. Petitioner was
under the impression that his case (L.A.R.No.123 of 1991) was
disposed of along with the other similar cases but, later learned
that his case was also disposed of but by a dismissal for default.
Thereon petitioner filed I.A.Nos.3958 of 2000 and 3960 of 2000 for
restoration of the reference case and to condone the delay of 7
years in filing that application. Learned Sub Judge was of the view
that delay is not explained and consequently refused to condone
the delay and set aside dismissal of the reference case. That order
is under challenge in this revision petition. It is contended by
learned counsel that it was under a bonafide impression that
petitioner’s case also was decided along with the remaining cases
that petitioner did not apply for restoration on time. I have heard
learned Government Pleader appearing for State as well.
2. It is not disputed that there were nine other cases
C.R.P.No.103 of 2004
: 2 :
arising from the same notification and though, not jointly those
cases were disposed of simultaneously allowing enhanced land
value. There is no reason to think that petitioner, having sought
reference of his claim for enhanced land value to the reference
court would keep idle and allow his reference case to be dismissed
for default. Petitioner did not stand to gain by such a conduct since
his claim for enhanced land value was being dismissed for default.
I do not find reason to think that there was any willful delay or
latches on the part of petitioner. Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case I accept the reason stated by petitioner
for the cause of delay as sufficient.
Resultantly this revision petition is allowed and the order
dated 27-06-2003 on I.A.Nos.3958 of 2008 and 3960 of 2000 in
L.A.R.No.123 of 1991 of the court of learned Sub Judge, North
Paravur is set aside. Those applications will stand allowed and
reference case restored to file. Learned Sub Judge shall dispose of
the reference case as provided under law after giving both sides
opportunity to adduce evidence. Parties shall appear in the court
below on 12-07-2010.
(THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE)
Sbna/-