Ravindran, J.
The 5th defendant in O.S.No.808 of 1969 on the file of the Court of the Principal Munsiff of Ernakulam has filed this appeal canvassing the correctness of the common order dated 1.8.2014 passed by the court below dismissing I.A.Nos.977 and 978 of 2013. By the impugned order, the court below held that the appellant has not shown sufficient cause for the long delay of 15255 days (corresponding to 42 years approximately) in filing I.A.Nos.977 and 978 of 2013.
2. The court below has in paragraph 7 of the impugned order referred to the fact that appellant's mother and sister, who are defendants 2 and 3 respectively were contesting the suit, that the preliminary decree was passed on 22.3.1971, that the appellant is residing with defendants 2 and 3, that the 2nd defendant had, after the preliminary decree was passed, assigned 10 cents of land to the additional 13th respondent in the final decree proceedings, that the appellant had along with defendants 3, 4 and 6 entered into a partition deed dated 11.4.1988 with respect to a portion of the plaint schedule property, that in the said partition deed reference is made to the preliminary decree for partition passed in the instant suit, that based on the said partition deed, the appellant herself had sold a portion of the land set apart to her share to the additional 11th respondent in the year 1994 and yet another portion to the additional 12th respondent in the year 1998. The court below accordingly held that the case put forward by the appellant that she was unaware of the preliminary decree and even the final decree cannot be believed.
3. After going through the impugned order and after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, we are not persuaded to take the view that the impugned order suffers from any infirmity. The appellant has not, in the appeal memorandum, disputed the correctness of the finding entered by the trial court in paragraph 6 of the impugned order that she had assigned portions of the plaint schedule property long after the preliminary decree for partition was passed and that in the said documents reference is made to the preliminary decree for partition. If that be so, the case put forward by the appellant that she was unaware of the suit and that she was made a party to the suit long after the suit was instituted by an amendment to the cause title of the plaint, which was carried out after the final decree was passed, cannot be accepted. We accordingly hold that there is no merit in the instant appeal.
The appeal fails and is dismissed.
Sd/-
P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE.
Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
//True copy// P.A. To Judge Jvt