P M K MOHAMMED Vs. CHAKKAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the landlord. The first respondent claims to be a tenant. The first respondent's application for purchase of kudikidappu right was dismissed by the Land Tribunal, Chawghat by its Order in O.A. No. 3223 of 1970. Against that order the first respondent' filed an appeal (A.A. No.2416 of 1977) in terms of S.102 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (the "Act"). That appeal was dismissed for default on 22-4-1978. The first respondent filed an application (I.A. No. 693 of 1978) for restoration of the appeal. That application was also dismissed for default by order dated 19-12-1979. The first respondent again filed an application (I. A.No. 417 of 1979) praying for restoration of his application for restoration of the appeal. By the impugned order Ext. P3 this application was allowed, and the original restoration application (I.A. No. 693 of 1978) was posted for consideration.

(2.) The petitioner's counsel Mr. Krishna Prasad submits that the appellate authority has no power to order restoration of an application praying for the restoration of an appeal, when the application for restoration of the appeal had been dismissed for default. Counsel says that while the appellate authority has, as recognised under S.102 of the Act, the appellate powers of a court under the Civil Procedure Code, the appellate authority having limited jurisdiction has no inherent power so much so that it cannot order restoration of an application which had been dismissed for default, when the prayer in that application was for restoration of the appeal which also had been dismissed for default. Counsel refers to a number of decisions in support of his contention that the power of the appellate authority is not wide enough for the purpose of making an order such as the one that has been made by the appellate authority.

(3.) S. 102(3) of the Act says: