CHAPPATI NARAYANAN Vs. V V KORAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is of the year 1992, Notice was issued on 13.7.1992. Even after the period of ten years process is not complete. Notice to first respondent returned stating expired. This was notified as early as on 1.3. 2000. No steps have been taken by the appellant to implead the legal representatives of the first respondent. Petitions for impleadement, setting aside abatement and to condone the delay were filed on 27.9. 2001. Notice was issued by this court. Process is not complete on those petitions as well. Notice to additional third respondent returned unserved stating 'expired'. Later C.M.P. No 441 of 2002 was filed by the appellant on 17.1.2002 to record legal representatives of additional third respondent. Fact remains that even after ten years appeal is not made ripe for hearing.

(2.) When the matter cam up for hearing on defect, we examined the merits of the case.

(3.) This appeal was preferred against the order in I.A. No. 2080 of 1991 in an un-numbered Claim Petition on the file of the M.A.C. Tribunal, Thalassery. I.A. No 2080 of 1991 was preferred before the Tribunal to condone the delay of 9 years and one month in filing the petition for compensation. When the application came up for hearing on 29.7.1991 the Tribunal passed the following order: