THAMBAYI Vs. JANARDHANAN NAMBIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question to be considered is whether the failure to file separate application to condone delay is detrimental to an appeal filed before the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms) beyond time when sufficient grounds have been made out explaining the delay in the appeal memorandum itself. Contention of the revision petitioner is that a separate petition under S. 5 of the Limitation Act is not necessary for filing appeal before the Appellate Authority in a case where sufficient grounds are stated in the appeal memorandum itself which would enable it to make a decision.

(2.) S. 102 (2) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act empowers the appellate Authority to admit appeal presented after the expiration of the period of limitation prescribed under sub-s. (1) if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. S. 102 (3) specifically provides that in deciding appeals under sub-s. (1) the appellate authority shall exercise all the powers which a court has and follow the same procedure which a court follows in deciding appeals against the decree of an original court under the Civil Procedure Code. Order XLI Rule (3a) reads: "when "an appeal is presented after the expiry of the period of limitation specified therefore, it shall be accompanied by an application supported by affidavit setting forth the facts on which the appellant relies to satisfy the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within such period. " As S. 102 (3) gives the Appellate Authority powers of a civil court and ordains it to follow the same procedure which a civil court has to follow in deciding appeals, Order XLI Rule (3a) of the C. P. C. cannot be ignored. Every appeal filed before the Appellate Authority beyond time must be accompanied by a separate petition under S. 5 of the Limitation Act. As such a petition was not filed the Appellate Authority was justified in dismissing the appeal.