M.KRISHNAN NAIR Vs. KRISHNA PILLAI MADHAVAN PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision arises from order dated 05.05.2004 on I.A.No.23 of 2003 in A.A.No.272 of 1998 of the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Alappuzha (for short, "the Appellate Authority"). That was an application filed by the petitioners (who are the legal representatives of the landlord) to condone the delay of 1299 days in filing the application for re-admission of the appeal (as if the same was dismissed for default on 15.11.1999) under Order XLI Rule 19 and Sec.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "the Code"). That application was dismissed by the Appellate Authority as per the impugned order holding that there is no sufficient cause to condone the delay and that petitioners are guilty of gross negligence and inaction.

(2.) THE deceased 1st respondent, the original applicant moved S.M. No.55 of 1989 in the Land Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (for short, "the Tribunal") to purchase landlord's right over 33 and 40 cents in Kowadiyar Village. He claimed to be the cultivating tenant of the said properties. That application was dismissed holding that the deceased 1st respondent is not a cultivating tenant. That order was challenged in A.A.No.28 of 1991 before the Appellate Authority, Attingal. By order dated 08.11.1993, the appeal was allowed and the S.M.Proceeding was remitted to the Tribunal for fresh decision. The landlord filed application for review of the said order. That application was allowed. By a revised order, the appeal was dismissed. The deceased 1st respondent challenged that order in this Court in C.R.P.No.461 of 1994. That civil revision was allowed by order dated 07.01.1997 and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for fresh decision. The Tribunal after remand, allowed the S.M.Proceeding and ordered assignment in favour of the deceased 1st respondent. Petitioners as legal representatives of the landlord challenged that order in A.A.No.272 of 1998. Pending that appeal, the 1st respondent died on 29.11.1998. On 08.07.1999 (it is submitted), the 4th respondent filed a memo and application to implead her as legal representative of the deceased 1st respondent. That was followed by the petitioners filing application to implead respondents 2 and 3 as legal representatives of the deceased 1st respondent. While those applications were pending, the Appellate Authority by order dated 15.11.1999 dismissed the appeal (on merit).

(3.) THE 4th respondent has appeared through counsel. Respondents 2 and 3 are the persons whom the petitioners wanted to implead as additional respondents in the appeal consequent to the death of the 1st respondent on 29.11.1998. Since that application is not so far allowed and respondents 2 and 3 are not impleaded in the appeal before the Appellate Authority, it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondents 2 and 3 in this civil revision.