Powers under Article 227 of the Constitution are supervisory, not appellate, and can only intervene in cases of manifest injustice, requiring plaintiffs to demonstrate valid reasons for delays in proceedings.

JUDGMENT

The orders passed by the Sub Court, Attingal on 01.11.2014 in I.A No.247/2012 and 248/2012 in A.S No.25/1989 are under challenge in this Original Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the additional second appellant in that case.

2. The petitioner and her sister, one Shanavas, were said to have been prosecuting A.S No.25/1989 before the Sub Court, Attingal, after the death of their mother Rehuma Beevi. According to the petitioner, her sister Shanavas was taking care of the aforesaid litigation, and she was under the impression that her sister had been doing all that were required for the proper and e ffective conduct of that appeal. It is further stated that the petitioner’s sister died during the year 2007, and that it was only in the year 2012 that she was able to contact the counsel who had been conducting the appeal under the instructions of her sister. Thus, it is stated that the petitioner came to know only on 17.01.2012 that the above appeal had been dismissed for default on 28.07.1994. Thereupon, the petitioner filed I.A No.247/2012 for the restoration of the appeal, and I .A No.248/2012 for the condonation of delay of 6375 days in filing the application for restoration.

3. She gave evidence as PW1 in support of the prayers in the aforesaid applications. One document was marked as Ext.B1 while the petitioner was examined in the above proceedings. The learned Sub Judge, after considering the aforesaid evidence and hearing both sides, found that the petitioner failed to prove that she was prevented by any sufficient cause from filing I.A No.247/2012 in time. Accordingly, the delay condonation application was dismissed, followed by the dismissal of the restoration application. The aforesaid orders are under challenge in this Original Petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Though respondents appeared through counsel, they did not advance any arguments.

5. As already stated above, the appeal was dismissed on 28.07.1994 for default. The text of the judgment rendered by the Principal Sub Court, Attingal dismissing the above appeal is extracted hereunder for easy reference:

“Appellant applies for time. Application rejected. No steps taken to implead the legal representatives of R2. 90 days time elapsed. Therefore the appeal is dismissed for default.”

6. It is clear from the aforesaid judgment that the dismissal of the appeal was not as abated due to the non-impleadment of the legal representatives of the deceased second respondent. On the other hand, the failure on the part of the appellant to take prompt steps for the prosecution of the appeal was the r eason for the dismissal of the said appeal for default on 28.07.1994. Therefore, I.A No.247/2012, which the petitioner had filed, was actually a petition for restoration of the appeal which was dismissed f or default on 28.07.1994, though t here is a prayer in the petition to pass an order setting aside the abatement, and the consequent dismissal of the appeal.

7. In I.A No.248/2012, the petitioner would contend that she had reposed confidence upon her sister who had been conducting the appeal for and on behalf of her as well, and that she was able to contact the counsel c oncerned only on 17.01.2012, after the death of her sister in the year 2007. There is no convincing explanation offered by the petitioner for the aforesaid delay of about five years even for getting in c ontact with the counsel who was said to have been conducting the case. Thus, the delay during the aforesaid period of five years stands unexplained.

8. Another reason which the learned Sub Judge t