Pathumuthubeevi W/o. Late Aliyar Meera Sahib vs Aminal Beevi D/o. Late Aliyar Mohammed

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Ker) 315

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM, J
Pathumuthubeevi W/o. Late Aliyar Meera Sahib – Appellant
Versus
Aminal Beevi D/o. Late Aliyar Mohammed – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) ARUN.B.VARGHESE AISWARYA V.S.
For the Respondent: R RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI

Table of Content
1. appellants challenged delay dismissal (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. appellants argue for delay condonation (Para 4)
3. respondents contest delay explanation (Para 5)
4. court considers delay factors (Para 6 , 7)
5. court rules on delay condonation (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
6. court affirms jurisdiction of trial court (Para 12 , 13)

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellants are the respondents 1 to 3 in I.A.No.241/2011 for passing Supplementary Preliminary Decree in O.S.No.115/1987 on the files of the Munsiff's Court, Pathanamthitta. They were the additional plaintiffs 2 to 4 in the suit, who were impleaded as legal heirs of the Original plaintiff. They challenged the Order dated 15.01.2013, passing Supplementary Preliminary Decree in I.A.No.241/2011 before the First Appellate Court by filing A.S.No.22/2022 with I.A.No.1/2022 to condone the delay of 3277 days in filing the appeal. I.A.No.1/2022 was dismissed by the First Appellate Court. Consequently, A.S.No.22/2022 was also dismissed. This Regular Second Appeal is filed challenging the Judgment and Decree in A.S.No.22/2022, taking grounds against the Order in I.A.No.1/2022 refusing to condone delay.

2. The short facts necessary for the disposal o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document