Kerala High Court
Vasumathy vs Kuthiravattom Swaroopam Managing on 18 May, 2009
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2011 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1933
WP(C).No. 1013 of 2010(B)
--------------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------------
VASUMATHY, AGED 85 YEARS, W/O.LATE BALAKRISHNAN,
KUNNUKAD HOUSE, P.O.THENKURISSI,
ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY
HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER JAYAKRISHNAN, AGED
52 YEARS, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, NAVULEMTHODU HOUSE,
MEENKARA P.O.,MUTHALAMADA,CHITTUR TALUK,PALAKKAD.
BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH
SMT.BINDU GEORGE
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------------
1. KUTHIRAVATTOM SWAROOPAM MANAGING
BODY MANAGER, K.P.MURALEEDHARAN THAMPAN,
PULAPOTTA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
2. VINAYAK KOMBAN, S/O.RAM MOHAN,
KUNNUKADU, THENKURISSI, ALATHUR TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
3. APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LR),
TRICHUR.
R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.BALAGOPAL
R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. SANJEETHA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 21/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
svs
W.P.(C). NO. 1013/2010
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
P1: COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 18/05/2009 IN
A.A. NO.27/2009 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
P2: COPY OF ORDER DATED 18/09/2009 IN A.A. NO.27/2009 PASSED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
P3: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21/11/2007 IN S.M.441/2006
RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER ON 26/10/2009.
P4: COPY OF COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT
DATED 09/07/2009.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A. TO JUDGE.
svs
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No. 1013 of 2010 B
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 21st day of December, 2011
J U D G M E N T
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Aggrieved by Ext.P3 order passed by the Land Tribunal, Ottapalam in S.M.No.441/2006, petitioner filed appeal No.27/2009 before the third respondent. The appeal was admitted and on issuing notice, parties entered appearance and Ext.P4 is a counter statement filed by the second respondent. Subsequently, by Ext.P2 order passed by the appellate authority, the appeal has been rejected, stating that the copy of the order in S.M.No.441/2006 produced was one obtained under the Right to Information Act and not a certified copy. It is thereupon, this writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P3 order.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that, subsequently, a certified copy was obtained, but on production before the appellate authority with a request to substitute with the copy already produced by him, the same W.P.(C) No.1013/2010 : 2 : was declined to be accepted. Therefore, the petitioner seeks a direction to the appellate authority to accept the certified copy and consider the appeal on merits.
3. I heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the third respondent and also the counsel appearing for the second respondent.
4. As already seen, the appeal was entertained and was numbered. If, before the appeal was numbered, any defect was noticed, the petitioner would have noticed the defect and could have rectified the defect. Once the appeal is entertained as one properly filed, without putting the appellant on notice, in my view, the third respondent should not have dismissed the appeal in the manner it is done. In any case, now that, according to the petitioner, the certified copy has been obtained, I feel it is unfair to deprive the appellant of his chance to contest the matter on merits.
In that view of the matter, I dispose of this writ petition, setting aside Ext.P2 and directing that, it will be open to the W.P.(C) No.1013/2010 : 3 : petitioner to produce within two weeks, certified copy of Ext.P3 order passed by the Land Tribunal, in which event, the matter will be reconsidered, with notice to the parties concerned.
Sd/-
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks/21/12 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge