High Court Kerala High Court

St.George Church Rep.By Parish vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 29 September, 2009

Kerala High Court
St.George Church Rep.By Parish vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 29 September, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRP.No. 514 of 2009()


1. ST.GEORGE CHURCH  REP.BY PARISH
                      ...  Petitioner
2. K.X.JOSEPH,S/O.XAVIER,AGED 51,
3. JOSEY,S/O. VARGHESE, AGED 57,
4. JOSEPH,S/O. SILVY, AGED 53 YEARS,
5. GEORGE M.O. S/O. OUSO, AGED 55,

                        Vs



1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.L.JOSEPH

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

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

 Dated :29/09/2009

 O R D E R
                   S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
                  -----------------------------------
                  C.R.P.Nos.514 & 515 of 2009
                   ---------------------------------
           Dated this the 29th day of September, 2009

                              O R D E R

These two revisions have been filed challenging the orders

of the learned District Judge, Ernakulam, declining to accept the

the two O.Ps filed seeking enhanced compensation for the reason

of inordinate delay. Claim for enhanced compensation by the

common petitioners in the two revisions were moved under the

claim petitions presented before the District Court contending

that the notices issued from the Electricity Board could be traced

out only belatedly. Admittedly, the trees from the property of

the church were cut and removed during 2001. The present

parish priest could trace out the notice dated 5.5.2000 only in

November, 2008, is the cause pleaded to condone the delay of

1706 days to file the original petitions seeking enhanced

compensation in both the original petitions. The learned District

not being satisfied with the ground canvassed dismissed the

petition to condone the delay. Challenge in the respective

revisions is against the orders so passed by the learned District

Judge declining to condone delay.

C.R.P.Nos.514 & 515 of 2009

2

2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. The claimant is a church is the ground canvassed by

the counsel and the petitioners are stated to be the parish priest

and others in management of the church. Whatever that be, on

the facts presented no justifiable reason for condoning the

inordinate delay in filing the claim petitions for enhanced

compensation has been made out.

Revisions lack merit and the petitions are dismissed.

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,
JUDGE.

bkn/-