Ramkumar, J.

1. In these appeals filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 (c ) C.P.C. the appellants challenge the separate orders passed by the Land Acquisition Reference Court namely the court of the Subordinate Judge, Kollam, dismissing the restoration petitions preferred against the orders dismissing for default the reference applications filed by some of the claimants.

THE FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The appellants in F.A.O. 141/2011 represent claimants 2 to 4, 6 and 7 in L.A.R. 129 of 1993. The appellants in F.A.O. No. 193/2011 represent claimants 1 and 2 in L.A.R. 138 of 1991. In both the L.A.R. cases certain parcels of land belonging to the aforesaid claimants and situated in Panmana Village of Karunagappally Taluk were compulsorily acquired by the State on the requisition made by the 2nd respondent, namely, the Indian Rare Earths Limited ("I.R.E. Ltd." for short) Chavara, Kollam. Dissatisfied with the compensation given under separate awards passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (the "Collector" for short) the aforementioned claimants preferred applications before the Collector under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, seeking a reference of their claim for enhanced compensation for determination by the Court. It was those applications which led to the registration of L.A.R. Nos. 138/1991 and 129 /1993 before the Sub Court, Kollam ("the reference Court" for short). On 17-2-1999 L.A.R. 138/1991 was dismissed for default by the reference court on the ground that claimants 1 & 2 did not file statements and were called absent and they had no representation.

On 16-09-1999 L.A.R. 129/1993 was also dismissed for default as against claimants 2,3,4,6 & 7 on grounds similar to those mentioned in L.A.R. 138/1991. I.A. No.894/2006 was filed under Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C. by the aggrieved claimants in L.A.R. 129/1993 seeking restoration of their reference dismissed for default. They also filed I.A. 895/2006 seeking to condone the delay of 2326 days in filing I.A. 894/2006. Similarly, I.A. 468/2006 was filed under Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C. by the aggrieved claimants in L.A.R. 138/91 seeking restoration of the reference. They also filed I.A. 468 (a) /2006 for condoning the delay of 2837 days in filing I.A.468/2006. I.A. No. 895/2006 was dismissed on 23-7-2007 holding inter alia that the petitioners therein did not satisfy the Court that they were prevented by sufficient cause from appearing before the Court. Consequently, I.A. 895/2006 was also dismissed. Same was the fate of I.A. 468 (a)/2006 and I.A.468/2006 both of which were dismissed on 3-10-2007. Eventhough the two sets of claimants preferred petitions seeking review of the aforesaid orders, the same were also dismissed by the Reference Court. It is thereafter that the present appeals have been filed representing the two sets of claimants some of whom are now no more.

THESE APPEALS

3. These appeals are directed against the orders passed by the Reference Court in the year 2007 rejecting as time barred the restoration petitions filed by the claimants seeking to restore the aforementioned land acquisition reference cases which were dismissed for default in the year 1999. The delay in filing these appeals was condoned by separate orders passed by this Court after hearing both sides.

4. We heard Advocate Sri. Johnson Gomez the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Advocate Smt. Thushara James the learned counsel appearing for the requisitioning authority (I.R.E. Ltd.) and Advocate Sri. R. Githesh, the learned Government Pleader representing the State.

OPPOSITION BY THE REQUISITIONING AUTHORITY

5. Adv. Smt. Thushara James, the learned counsel appearing for I.R.E. Ltd., (the requisitioning authority) made the following submissions before us opposing these appeals:- Even if the orders dismissing the L.A.R. cases for default and the impugned orders are unsustainable, the appellants were guilty of gross laches and they had subsequently filed applications for reviewing the impugned o