High Court Kerala High Court

John Karipat vs Moilia Karillath Mammad on 6 January, 2010

Kerala High Court
John Karipat vs Moilia Karillath Mammad on 6 January, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRP.No. 662 of 2009()


1. JOHN KARIPAT, S/O. AUGUSTINE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. MOILIA KARILLATH MAMMAD,
                       ...       Respondent

2. ONAVILLATH KESAVAA VAZHANNUVAR,

3. STATE OF KERALA, BY GOVT. PLEADER

                For Petitioner  :SRI.ABRAHAM JOHN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

 Dated :06/01/2010

 O R D E R
                  S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
                 ----------------------------------------
               C.R.P.Nos.662 AND 677 OF 2009
                     --------------------------------
           Dated this the 6th day of January 2010
         ----------------------------------------------------------

                              JUDGMENT

These two revisions are filed against separate

orders passed by the Appellate Authority (LR), Kannur

dismissing the applications moved for restoring two appeals

which had been dismissed for default. Both the appeals,

A.A No.103 and 104 of 1994 were dismissed for default on

23/11/1995. After lapse of six years, the common appellant

moved applications for restoring the appeals seeking

condonation of delay. The Appellate Authority, not being

satisfied with the grounds raised, dismissed that applications

vide separate orders dated 29/08/2001. Those orders are

sought to be challenged in the above two revisions seeking

condonation of delay for a period of 2960 days in preferring

such revisions.

2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Perusing the affidavit sworn to in support of the petition to

condone delay by the appellant and also the submissions

C.R.P.Nos.662 AND 677 OF 2009 Page numbers

made by the learned counsel, I find no justifiable ground for

condoning delay and entertaining the revisions. The appeals

dismissed for default were sought to be restored seeking

condonation of delay of more than six years. The orders

passed by the Appellant Authority declining the request are

sought to be challenged by way of revisions after a span of

eight years. The petitions moved to condone such

inordinate delay are devoid of merit and they are dismissed.

With the result, the revisions are also dismissed.

Sd/-

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,
JUDGE
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE

vdv