PURUSHOTHAMAN Vs. CHELLAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Second Appeal arises from the judgment and decree of the First Additional District Court, Mavelikara in A.S. No.65 of 2009 dismissing that appeal as time barred for the reason of dismissal I.A. No.554 of 2009 to condone the delay.

(2.) THAT appeal arose from the preliminary decree for partition passed by the Munsiff's court, Harippad in O.S. No.273 of 2002. Appellants-defendants 1, 2 and 9 challenged that preliminary decree on various grounds. Since there was a delay of 1136 days in filing the appeal, appellants filed I.A. No.554 of 2009. On that application the 1st appellant was examined as P.W.1. Contesting respondents proved Exts.B1 to B3. The first appellate court found that the reasons stated for condonation of delay are not true, the inordinate delay is not explained and consequently dismissed I.A. No.554 of 2009. That followed dismissal of the appeal as time barred.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the contesting respondents has opposed the prayer.