Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1945 OP(C) NO. 1160 OF 2023 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.01.2015 IN I.A. NO.1617 OF 2014 IN OS 104 OF 2011 OF THE HON’BLE SUBORDINATE JUDGE’S COURT, KOCHI PETITIONER/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: JAISON THOMAS AGED 52 YEARS S/O.THOMAS, RESIDING AT CHULLIYADAN HOUSE, VALUMMEL DESOM, PALLURUTHY NORTH MURI, RAMESWARAM VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682006 BY ADVS. S.SUNIL KUMAR (PALAKKAD) B.S.SURAJ KRISHNA LEKSHMI S.SEKHER K.J.SUNIL FEMY M.ANTONY RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT: C.J.RAPHAEL @ ULLAS AGED 71 YEARS S/O.JOSEPH, SUPERVISOR, CHALAVEETTIL, KUMBALANGHI MURI, KUMBALANGHI PO, KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682007 THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.07.2023, ALONG WITH OP(C).1167/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1945 OP(C) NO. 1167 OF 2023 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.01.2015 IN I.A. NO.1615 OF 2014 IN OS 103 OF 2011 OF THE HON’BLE SUBORDINATE JUDGE’S COURT, KOCHI PETITIONER/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: JAISON THOMAS AGED 52 YEARS S/O.THOMAS, RESIDING AT CHULLIYADAN HOUSE, VALUMMEL DESOM, PALLURUTHY NORTH MURI, RAMESWARAM VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682006 BY ADVS. S.SUNIL KUMAR (PALAKKAD) B.S.SURAJ KRISHNA LEKSHMI S.SEKHER K.J.SUNIL FEMY M.ANTONY RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:
1 ANNA D/O.THOMMAN, W/O.BAPPU, CHAKALAKKAL, KALLENCHERRY DESOM, KUMBALANGHI VILLAGE, KUMBALANGHI PO, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682007 2 THRESIA D/O.THOMMAN, W/O.ANTHAPPAN @ ANTONY, THOTTAKKADU, KALLENCHERRY DESOM, KUMBALANGHI VILLAGE, KUMBALANGHI PO, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682007 3 THOMAS S/O.THRESIA, THOTTAKKADU, KALLENCHERRY DESOM, KUMBALANGHI VILLAGE, KUMBALANGHI PO, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682007 4 PHILOMINA D/O.THRESIA, THOTTAKKADU, KALLENCHERRY DESOM, KUMBALANGHI VILLAGE, KUMBALANGHI PO, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682007 5 MARY D/O.THRESIA, THOTTAKKADU, KALLENCHERRY DESOM, KUMBALANGHI VILLAGE, KUMBALANGHI PO, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682007 6 JUDE @ BAIJU S/O.THRESIA, THOTTAKKADU, KALLENCHERRY DESOM, KUMBALANGHI VILLAGE, KUMBALANGHI PO, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682007 THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.07.2023, ALONG
WITH OP(C).1160/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
C.S.DIAS, J.
------------------------------ O.P.(C.) Nos.1160 & 1167 of 2023 ------------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of July, 2023
COMMON JUDGMENT
The original petitions are filed challenging the orders passed in I.A. Nos.1617/2014 (Ext.P5) and 1618/2014 (Ext.P6) in O.S. No.104/2011 of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Kochi.
2. The common case of the petitioner in the
original petitions is that he had filed the above suit against the respondent, for a decree for specific performance. The suit was listed to 27.03.2013 for payment of the balance court fee. As the petitioner suffered a major accident, he could not remit the balance court fee on time. The court below rejected the plaint for non-payment of the balance court fee. The petitioner filed Ext.P3 review petition, along
with Ext.P4 delay petition, to review the order
rejecting the plaint. The court below, by Exts.P5 and P6 orders, rejected Exts.P3 review petition and P4 delay petition. Exts.P5 and P6 are patently erroneous and wrong. Hence, the original petition.
3. Heard; Sri.S.Sunil Kumar, appearing for the petitioner on admission.
4. The point is whether there is any illegality in Exts.P5 and P6 orders.
5. The petitioner had filed the suit for a
decree for specific performance. The suit was rejected for non-payment of the court fee. The petitioner had preferred Ext.P3 review petition, to review the order rejecting the plaint. Along with the review petition, the petitioner had also filed Ext.P4 delay petition, to condone the delay of 603 days in filing Ext.P3 review petition.
6. The court below, by Ext.P6 order dated
23.01.2015, rejected Ext.P4 delay petition on the ground that the petitioner had not stated sufficient cause to condone the long delay of 603 days. Consequentially, the court below also rejected Ext.P3 review petition by Ext.P5 order.
7. The petitioner asserts that Exts.P5 and P6 are erroneous and liable to be set aside.
8. Although the Constitution of India does
not stipulate any time period within which an original petition is to be filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, it is well settled in a catena of precedents that such original petitions are to be filed within a reasonable time period.
9. Exts.P5 and P6 orders were passed on
23.01.2015, that is more than eight years back. There is no plausible explanation in the original petitions explaining the inordinate delay in filing the original petitions. It is trite, that a person has to state sufficient reasons explaining the reason for the delay in belatedly challenging the orders and such delay shall not cause prejudice to the crystalised rights of the opposite side.
10. On an appreciation of the materials on
record and taking note of Exts.P5 and P6 orders passed as early as on 23.01.2015 and total absence of a pleading regarding the inordinate delay in challenging the impugned orders, I am not inclined to entertain the original petitions by exercising the power of superintendence of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, especially in view of the willful latches and negligence on the part of the petitioner. Thus, I also arrive at the conclusion that the court below was justified in passing Exts.P5 and P6 orders. The original petitions are meritless and consequentially, dismissed. Sd/- C. S. DIAS JUDGE SKP/25-07 APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1167/2023 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SUIT AS OS NO-103/2011 FILED BEFORE THE HONBLE SUB COURT AT KOCHI DATED 17.05.2011 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FIELD BY THE RESPONDENTS IN OS NO-103/2011 BEFORE THE HONBLE SUB COURT AT KOCHI DATED 10.08.2011 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION AS IA NO-1615/2014 IN OS NO-103/2011 FILED BEFORE THE HONBLE SUB COURT AT KOCHI DATED 20.12.2014 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DELAY PETITION AS IA NO-1616/2014 IN OS NO-103/2011 FILED BEFORE THE HONBLE SUB COURT AT KOCHI DATED 20.12.2014 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IA NO-1615/2014 IN OS NO- 23.01.2015 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA NO-1616/2014 IN OS NO- 23.01.2015 RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS:NIL APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1160/2023 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SUIT AS OS NO-104/2011 FILED BEFORE THE HONBLE SUB COURT AT KOCHI DATED 17.05.2011 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FIELD BY THE RESPONDENTS IN OS NO-104/2011 BEFORE THE HONBLE SUB COURT AT KOCHI DATED 29.06.2011 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION AS IA NO-1617/2014 IN OS NO-104/2011 FILED BEFORE THE HONBLE SUB COURT AT KOCHI DATED 20.12.2014 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DELAY PETITION AS IA NO-1618/2014 IN OS NO-104/2011 FILED BEFORE THE HONBLE SUB COURT AT KOCHI DATED 20.12.2014 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IA NO-1617/2014 IN OS NO- 23.01.2015 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA NO-1618/2014 IN OS NO- 23.01.2015 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE