Antony Dominic, J. This appeal is filed against the judgment in OP No.6785/1998. Along with the appeal, C.M.Appln.No.228/13 has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 4692 days in filing the appeal. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit objecting to the prayer made.
2. We heard the learned senior counsel for the appellant, learned standing counsel for the 1st respondent, learned Government Pleader appearing for the 2nd respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent.
3. OP No.6785/1998 was disposed of by the learned single Judge by judgment dated 20/1/1999. Long thereafter, in 2011, petitioner filed RP No.628/11 with a prayer to condone delay of 3774 days. Condoning the delay, the review petition was considered on merits and was dismissed by order dated 01/2/2012.
4. Thereafter, WA No.442/13 was filed on 5/3/13 accompanied by C.M.Appln.No.228/13 seeking condonation of delay of 4692 days.
5. Two affidavits are filed in support of the prayer for condonation of delay. The first affidavit is dated 26th of February, 2013 where the only averment contained in para 5 is that the delay caused is neither deliberate nor due to any wilful laches on the part of the petitioner and that the delay caused is highly regretted. Obviously, since these averments are totally unsatisfactory and insufficient to support the prayer, subsequently, another affidavit has been filed on 16th of June, 2013, where also an attempt has been again made to explain the delay. In this affidavit, it is contended that since delay of 3774 days has been condoned while entertaining RP No.628/11 and as the RP was dismissed only on 01/2/12, technically the delay in filing this appeal is only from the date of dismissal of the review petition. It is also stated that the petitioner's counsel had by some oversight omitted to mention the fact of dismissal of the RP and that the petitioner herself was also unaware of the same.
6. In so far as the first averment that technically the delay is only from 01/2/12 when RP No.628/11 is disposed of is concerned, we feel that the said contention is incorrect. When the delay of 3774 days was condoned and RP was entertained on merits and was dismissed, the judgment dated 20/1/1999 disposing of OP No.6785/98 is not merged in the order in the review petition. If appeal is to be filed, it should be against the judgment in the Original Petition. If so, the time for filing appeal will have to be counted from the date of the judgment in the Original Petition itself. Therefore, this contention cannot be accepted.
7. The second contention that the petitioner was unaware of the disposal of the review petition cannot be accepted because the petitioner, apart from being a very educated person, is also expected to make enquiries with the counsel to know the outcome of the litigation instituted at her instance. In so far as the vague averment that the counsel did not inform her about the disposal of the review petition is concerned, that claim also cannot be accepted as it is not substantiated by any material such as an affidavit of the counsel himself.
8. We are not satisfied that the delay of 4962 days has been satisfactorily explained.
9. Therefore, C.M.Appln.No.228/13 is rejected and consequently WA No.442/13 also is rejected.
10. WA No.340/13 is filed against the judgment in WP(C) No.9904/09. Reading of the judgment shows that it was because of the finality of the judgment in OP No.6785/1998, the petitioner was held to be ineligible for the benefit sought for. We have gone through the judgment and we fully endorse the view taken by the learned single Judge. We do not find any merit in this appeal also.
WA Nos.340/13 and 442/13 are dismissed.
Rp //True Copy// PA to Judge Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE