MAYANKUTTY Vs. PREMANANDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking to condone the delay of 5323 days in filing the appeal.

(2.) The reasons for the delay are the following:

(3.) The 1st respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit controverting the contentions of the petitioner. It was incorrect that the petitioner's father had mental ailments. The suit was decreed exparte twice. I.A.No. 58 of 2005 was filed for setting aside the decree the second time. After a delay of more than 15 years, the petitioner has now filed the appeal to challenge that order. Claim petition filed by the 2nd respondent was compromised during the appeal stage genuinely. The 2nd respondent claimed right in the disputed property on the basis of a registered gift deed executed by his father, who is the defendant in the suit. Therefore, other legal representatives of the defendant were not necessary parties to that claim petition or the appeal. The said compromise is not vitiated in any manner or is liable to be challenged by the petitioner. The petitioner himself filed I.A.No. 1228 of 2007 claiming independent rights in the disputed property. He claimed that he got the property as per an oral gift from his brother the 2nd respondent. That claim petition and also the Ex.F.A.No. 125 of 2009 in that matter were dismissed. The petitioner also had filed I.A.No. 1291 of 2009 for setting aside the exparte decree in O.S.No. 48 of 2001. There was a delay of 2025 days, and therefore, I.A.No. 1290 of 2009 was also filed. Both those petitions were dismissed on 11/4/2012. He, therefore, has filed petitions for restoring I.A.Nos. 1290 and 1291 of 2009, which were also dismissed. When the 1st respondent took steps for getting delivery of the plaint schedule property by pursuing I.A.No. 7 of 2005 before the Sub Court, Vatakara, the 3rd respondent filed an Original Petition before this Court and obtained an order of stay. That petition was eventually dismissed. The petitioner had also filed an Original Petition as O.P.(C) No. 6 of 2022 before this Court with a view to stall the delivery proceedings. That petition was dismissed and there arose some doubt regarding the order of stay and therefore the person, who purchased the disputed property from the 1st respondent Sri.Valsarajan K. filed a Review Petition and got it clarified. Again, when the delivery proceedings have been pursued, the petitioner filed Review Petition No. 497 of 2021 seeking to review the judgment in Ex.F.A.No. 43 of 2014, before this Court. That Review Petition also has been dismissed. It was after all such efforts to see that execution of the decree in O.S.No. 48 of 2001 does not take place, the petitioner now has filed the present appeal. There is absolutely no reason to condone the delay. The petition is accordingly sought to be dismissed.