Santhosh vs Land Reforms Appellate Authority on 11 March, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 7560 of 2009(L)


1. SANTHOSH, S/O. LATE MAMPILLY
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. LAND REFORMS APPELLATE AUTHORITY,
                       ...       Respondent

2. SAROJINI,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JIJO PAUL

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :11/03/2009

 O R D E R
                       ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                  -------------------------
                    W.P.(C.) No.7560 of 2009
             ---------------------------------
             Dated, this the 11th day of March, 2009

                           J U D G M E N T

The petitioner states that he is the 3rd respondent in

A.A.No.144/90 on the file of the 1st respondent.

2. According to him, appeal was dismissed for default on

13/10/1999. However, the predecessor of the 2nd respondent

sought restoration of the appeal by filing Ext.P1, and to which the

petitioner’s predecessor filed Ext.P2 objection. It is stated that along

with Ext.P1, Ext.P3 application for condoning the delay of 2030 days

in filing Ext.P1 was also filed, and on that application also, his

predecessor had filed Ext.P4 objection. However, ignouring the

objections, order was passed by the 1st respondent condoning the

delay and allowing restoration.

3. The petitioner submits that despite having applied for

copies of these orders, the copies have not been issued so far. It is

stated that he pursueded the matter by filing various

representations, but however these representations remain without

any results. In these circumstances praying that an order requiring

WP(C) No.7560/2009
-2-

the 1st respondent to issue copies of the orders condoning the delay

and allowing restoration of Appeal No.144/1990, this writ petition

has been filed.

4. If as stated, the petitioner, being a party to the

proceedings, has applied for issuance of copies of the orders as

above, there is no reason why the 2nd respondent has declined or

delayed the same. Therefore, I direct the 1st respondent to issue

copies of the aforesaid orders to the petitioner, if he has already

made application for the same.

5. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment

before the 1st respondent for compliance.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg