IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
AS.No. 542 of 1998()
1. DIRECTOR OF STATE LOTTERIES,KERALA,TVM
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MATTAPOYIL SURESH
... Respondent
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent :SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :12/08/2009
O R D E R
P.R.RAMAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ.
————————————————————————
CMP NO.4410/98 in AS 542/98 & AS 542 OF 1998-A
————————————————————————-
Dated 12th August 2009
Judgment
RAMAN, J.
CMP No.4410/98 is a petition to condone the delay of 1084
days in filing the appeal. The appeal was filed as early as in
1998 and the delay petition comes up for orders only in 2009. Be
that it may, the affidavit filed in support of the petition to condone
the delay states that the dispute in the suit is between two
private parties in the matter of entitlement of the prized amount
in the State Lottery. Rs.25 lakhs is the prized amount. The
Director of State Lotteries was included in the party array.
2. The suit was decreed and there was also an appeal
before this court. According to the petitioner, the decree was
passed on 15.11.1994 and the copy application was filed only on
24.09.1997. The delay of three years for applying for the copy
is not explained. According to the appellant he is aggrieved
because when he received notice in the execution petition, he
found that the claim is for an amount of Rs.25 lakhs. That is
AS 542/98 2
perhaps the reason for filling this appeal.
3. We have gone through the copy of the order issued by
the Director of State Lotteries, which clearly shows that the
amount of income tax was deducted pursuant to the judgment of
this court in AS No.256/95. Accordingly, the income tax due by
each of the parties was deducted and paid over to the Central
Government and only the balance is deposited, which has been
withdrawn by the parties also. Therefore, the decree stands
satisfied. In the absence of any dispute, at present, it is
unnecessary to file any appeal. The delay is not properly
explained. In such circumstances, the delay petition is
dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.
P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE
P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE
sta
AS 542/98 3
AS 542/98 4