The suit for specific performance in O.S. No. 485/2008 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge of Palakkad was decreed in part. The appeal filed by the plaintiff in A.S. No. 348/2011 is pending consideration on the file of the court of the District Judge of Palakkad. The assignee of the property from the defendants pending suit has got himself impleaded in A.S. No. 348/2011.
2. The assignee also filed A.S. No. 162/2012 on the file of the court of the District Judge of Palakkad challenging the decree in O.S. No. 485/2008. The appeal was accompanied by an application for leave and also an application for condonation of delay. The lower appellate court has dismissed the application for condonation of delay in A.S. No. 162/2012 keeping A.S. No. 348/2011 pending.
3. It is only proper that both the appeal suits arising from the same decree are disposed of on merits in the 2 RSA No. 675/2014 circumstances. This is particularly so when the assignee from defendants 1 and 2 has been permitted to be impleaded in A.S. No. 348/2011 filed by the plaintiff. I set aside the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court in A.S. No. 162/2012 in the circumstances aforestated.
4. The court of the District Judge of Palakkad is directed to dispose of A.S. No. 348/2011 and 162/2012 on merits together. Every endeavour shall be made to pass final judgment therein before the court closes for Christmas vacation. The substantial questions of law framed in the second appeal as regards condonation of delay is answered in favour of the appellant.
The Regular Second Appeal is disposed of.
ncd V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE