1. One of us sitting single when hearing the Civil Revision Petition felt that a clarification is called for of an earlier decision of us reported as Kochu Lakshmi v. Velayudhan and others (1981 KLT. 639 : 1980 KLN. 642). That is why this revision petition is referred to a Division Bench. The facts necessary to understand the dispute between the parties are the following:

2. The second respondent by name Indian Evangelical Lutheran Church Trust Association represented by its Manager filed an application before the Land Tribunal under S 72-B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act for purchase of the landlord's right. That application was properly notified and the revision petitioner was also given individual notice and he had filed an objection to it, but did not substantiate the same. The Land Tribunal after enquiry found that the applicant is a cultivating tenant entitled to purchase and therefore directed the issue of the purchase certificate to the Association. Long after the period of limitation to file the appeal was over the revision petitioner filed an appeal and applied to excuse delay stating that he knew about the order of the Land Tribunal only three or four days befo