S.PETER Vs. M/S.TATA TEA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant in O.S.No.276 of 2000 of the Munsiff's Court, Devikulam is aggrieved by the dismissal of A.S.No.105 of 2010 of the District Court, Thodupuzha as barred by limitation and has preferred this second appeal.

(2.) RESPONDENT /plaintiff sued the appellant for declaration of its title and recovery of possession of the suit property claiming that the appellant is an unauthorised occupant of the suit property. Appellant resisted the suit on various grounds. The case came up for trial in the list and a decree, in the absence of the appellant was passed on 15.01.2003. Challenging that judgment and decree, the appellant filed A.S.No.105 of 2010 with I.A.No.743 of 2010 to condone the delay of 2845 days in filing the appeal. That application was resisted by the respondent. The learned District Judge, by order dated 07.06.2011 held that the delay is not properly and sufficiently explained and dismissed I.A.No.743 of 2010. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as time barred.

(3.) ACCORDING to the appellant, respondent had filed another suit as O.S.No.178 of 2001 (while O.S.No.276 of 2000 was pending) against the appellant seeking the very same reliefs. The records of that case and the present case were entrusted to the counsel in the trial court. O.S.No.178 of 2001 was dismissed. The counsel for the appellant in the trial court told the appellant that he will inform the posting date of O.S.No.276 of 2000. But, that did not happen. Appellant who is a labourer was under the impression that the counsel would intimate him about the posting of O.S.No.276 of 2000. Hence the delay.