JUDGMENT

The challenge in this Original Petition is to the order dated

15.03.2019 in I.A.No.3765 of 2017 in A.S.No.86 of 2017 on the file of the Additional District Court - V, Ernakulam. The petitioner is the appellant in A.S.No.86 of 2017. He was the plaintiff in O.S.No.793 of 2009 on the file of the Ist - Additional Munsiff’s Court, Ernakulam. The suit was dismissed. The petitioner challenged the decree by filing A.S. No.86/2017 before the District Court along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of six years, ten months and twenty two days in preferring the appeal.

2. The appellant pleaded in the application seeking condonation of delay that he was serving out side Kerala and he had no idea about the dismissal of the suit. The Appellate Court found that the petitioner/appellant failed to show sufÏcient cause for condonation of delay and consequently dismissed I.A.No.3765/2017. The petitioner challenges the said order in this Original Petition.

3. When the matter was taken up for hearing, it was brought to the notice of the Court that no consequential order or judgment was passed in the appeal. This Court obtained a report from the District Court concerned. The District Judge reported that consequent to the dismissal of I.A.No.3765/2017 on

15.03.2019, no order has been passed in the appeal.

4. It is submitted at the bar that the Appellate Court should have dismissed the appeal as a consequence of the dismissal of the application seeking condonation of delay and the Court should have drawn a decree.

5. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Appellate Court had not passed any order or judgment in the Appeal Suit. He has been left remediless, as the statutory remedy should have been a Regular Second Appeal challenging the decree dismissing the First Appeal.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to issue a direction to the First Appellate Court to rectify the error committed by it. It appears that the learned Appellate Judge committed an inadvertent mistake. Mistake of the Court shall not harm the litigant. The exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is usually not available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law and a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.

7. In the present case, the twin tests are satisfied. This Court feels that interference in the proceedings in the Trial Court is required to do complete justice to the parties. Therefore, Additional District Court-V, Ernakulam is directed to rectify the errors in the proceedings.

The Original Petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

K.BABU JUDGE VPK APPENDIX OF OP(C) 2177/2019 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF NO DUE CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE CISF UNIT NLC NEYVELI OBTAINED TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY COPY OF CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE DATED 25.4.2001 ISSUED FROM THE COMMANDANT CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE (MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS)

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF CISF IDENTITY CARD OF THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF CERTIFICATE NO.11099/CISF/NLC/QM/ACCO/2009 EXHIBIT P5 CERTIFIED COPY OF PLAINT IN O.S.NO.793/2009 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM FILED BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENT DATED

31.07.2010 IN O.S.NO.793/2009 OF THE

1ST ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF PLAINT IN O.S.NO.1399/2013 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM FILED BY C.K.VIJYAN AGAINST THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P8 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT ALONG WITH COUNTER CLAIM FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN O.S.1399/2013 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM EXHIBIT P9 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF REGISTERED WILL DEED NO.70/1993 OF S.R.O.ERNAKULAM EXHIBIT P10 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL A.S.NO.86/2017 ALONG WITH DELAY PETITION FILE