AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.—Learned Government Pleader takes notice for the first respondent. Adv. Sri. E.K. Nandakumar takes notice for the second respondent. Service complete. We deem it appropriate that this matter is dealt with immediately.
The appellants are respondents in land acquisition reference. They say that the reference was disposed of for default. They applied for restoration. That stands dismissed on the ground that the application is barred by limitation and that there is no application to condone the delay in seeking restoration. As the order now stands, we cannot find fault with it, if as a matter of fact there is delay in filing the application for restoring the reference. But the learned Counsel for the appellants states that the question whether the application was barred by limitation was never the case of any of the respondents, nor was the application noted as defective or time barred by the office of the court below. He also says that his client was also not aware of the fact that the application was time barred. We are clear in our mind that these are not excuses, which would lead to the criticism of the order impugned before us. Therefore, it may be a case where there is a bonafide mistake in not filing an application to condone the delay.
In such circumstances, we order that the court below will give the appellants an opportunity to file an application to condone the delay in filing I.A. No. 1427 of 2009 and also an application for review of the impugned order, subject of course to the result of the application to condone delay.
FAO is ordered accordingly.