Kerala High Court
The Cannanore Parsi Anjuman Trust vs The District Collector on 27 May, 2025
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
FAO No.49 of 2025
1
2025:KER:36207
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 6TH JYAISHTA, 1947
FAO NO. 49 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24/01/2025 IN I.A.NO.1/2022 &
I.A.NO.2/2022 IN OS NO.652 OF 2012 OF SUB COURT, KANNUR
APPELLANT//PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:
THE CANNANORE PARSI ANJUMAN TRUST
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,
TEHME.M.MISTRY, W/O.LATE MACKY B.MISTRY,
AGED 73 YEARS, RESIDING AT 'AHUR'
FORT ROAD, KANNUR 1 AMSOM,
KANNUR TALUK,
POST KANNUR
PIN - 670001
BY ADV V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
KANNUR DISTRICT,
COLLECTORATE,
KANNUR, PIN - 670001
2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KANNUR 1 VILLAGE, KANNUR,
PIN - 670001
3 STATE OF KERALA
FAO No.49 of 2025
2
2025:KER:36207
REPRESENTED BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER SRI.ASWIN SETHUMADHAVAN
THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 26.05.2025, THE COURT ON 27.05.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
FAO No.49 of 2025
3
2025:KER:36207
JUDGMENT
P.Krishna Kumar, J.
The appellant instituted a suit before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kannur, for a declaration and consequential possession over the immovable properties mentioned in the suit. When the suit was listed for trial on 26/08/2019, the appellant was absent and as a result, the suit was dismissed for default.
2. The appellant Trust is being represented by its trustee. The appellant filed a petition to restore the suit together with a petition to condone the delay of 883 days, contending that on the day when the suit was listed, the trustee was held up at Pune in connection with some urgent family affairs. It is further contended that when the trustee became able to reach Kerala, the restrictions related to the COVID pandemic were in force and thus she could make the applications FAO No.49 of 2025 4 2025:KER:36207 belatedly. The learned Sub Judge dismissed the application finding that there was no sufficient cause for condoning the delay. The said orders are under challenge in this appeal.
3. Heard both sides. The learned Government Pleader stoutly opposed the appeal.
4. In Re:Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (suo motu Writ Petition(C)No.3/2020 dated 10/01/2022), the Apex Court held that the period from 15/03/2020 till 28/02/2022 would be excluded for the purpose of limitation in respect of all judicial proceedings. In this case, the appellant states by affidavit that the trustee was prevented by sufficient cause for not appearing on the date on which the case was listed for trial. She further explained the reason for the delay in submitting the application for restoration in time. We find no reason to doubt this statement.
5. Taking into account the fact that the appellant is being represented by a lady aged 70 years and that FAO No.49 of 2025 5 2025:KER:36207 nearly 715 days out of the period of delay were covered by the COVID pandemic period, we are of the view that the suit can be restored by condoning the delay.
6. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The delay is condoned and the suit is restored to the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kannur.
The parties shall appear before the trial court on 16/06/2025. Considering the fact that the suit was instituted in the year 2012, we are sure that the trial court will take every endeavour to dispose of the matter at the earliest.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN JUDGE Sd/-
P. KRISHNA KUMAR JUDGE sv