PARAMBAN SAIDALAVI Vs. HARRISONS MALAYALAM LTD. AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises from O.S.No.322 of 1988 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Kalpetta. The first defendant in the suit is the appellant. The case of the plaintiff is that plaint B schedule property belongs to them and the defendants have trespassed into the same. The suit, in the circumstances, was one for a decree of recovery of possession of plaint B schedule property from the defendants and a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing into the said property. The defendants filed a written statement denying the title to the property claimed by the plaintiff. In the meanwhile, the first defendant has also filed a suit as O.S.No. 332 of 1988 for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the plaintiff from trespassing into the plaint B schedule property. The trial court decreed O.S. No. 322 of 1988 and dismissed O.S.No. 332 of 1988 by a common judgment. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial court, the first defendant filed two appeals. There was delay in filing both the appeals. The appeal preferred by the first defendant against the decision in O.S.No.322 of 1988 was not numbered on account of the delay. I.A.No.760 of 2008 is the application preferred by the first defendant in the said appeal to condone the delay of 5232 days in filing the appeal. I.A.No. 760 of 2008 was dismissed by the appellate court. Consequently, the appeal was also dismissed. The second appeal is against the decision in the appeal preferred by the first defendant challenging the decision in O.S.322 of 1988.

(2.) A.S.No. 14 of 2009 is the appeal preferred by the first defendant against the decision in O.S.No. 332 of 1988. There was a delay of 5232 days in filing the said appeal as well and the said delay was, however, condoned by the very same court. Annexure I is the order passed by the appellate court on the interlocutory application preferred by the first defendant for condoning the delay in filing A.S.No.14 of 2009. It is in the said circumstances that the second appeal was admitted on the substantial questions of law formulated in the appeal.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned counsel for the first respondent.