Delay in appeal condonation must be considered based on the substantive reasoning provided by appellants, not misconstrued reliance on co-trustee action.

J U D G M E N T

The appellants, who are not the parties to the suit, filed an appeal against the judgment and decree in O.S No.48/2018 on the files of the Additional Sub Court, Kollam. The suit is one for partition and permanent prohibitory injunction. The appellants are the managing trustees of a trust. The appellants claim that they were under bona fide impression that filing of an appeal by co- trustee would suffice the cause. But later found that the co-trustee has challenged the judgment of the trial court in his individual capacity. Further, under Section 13 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 , the trustee is bound to protect the trust property. In such circumstances, a separate appeal was preferred with an application to condone the delay of 60 days in filing the appeal. The respondents 1, 2 and 12 filed an objection stating that the trust had filed an interlocutory application as I.A No.3033/2017 to get themselves impleaded in the suit and which was withdrawn on 21.11.2017 and that the appellants filed a separate suit as O.S No.119/2024 before the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram, for declaration of title. Respondents 3, 6 and 8 filed a separate objection. The First Appellate Court took up the application for condonation of delay and found that inasmuch as the appellants are not parties to the suit, their application for leave should also be considered. But then, the First Appellate Court found an opinion that the question of considering the application to leave to the appeal would arise only after the delay stands condoned. On merits of the application, the First Appellate Court found that inasmuch as an application was filed for getting impleaded in the suit and the same was withdrawn, the appellants have not explained the cause of delay properly. Accordingly, the application to condone the delay as I.A No.1/2024 was dismissed and consequently, the appeal itself was dismissed. Hence the present appeal.

2. Heard Shri.Pirappancode V.S.Sudheer, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri.Sreekanth S. Nair, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1, 2 and 12.

3. On 31.10.2025, this Court admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law:-

(i) Whether the first appellate court was justified in dismissing the application seeking to condone the delay in filing the application for leave to file appeal, despite the fact that the appellant had given sufficient and valid reasons for condoning the delay ?

(ii) Had not the appreciation of pleadings in the application seeking to condone the delay of 60 days, for filing the appeal, by the first appellate court, is perverse and consequently the dismissal of the application to condone the delay and the consequential judgment dismissing the appeal, are sustainable?

(iii) Had not the first appellate Court, consequent on the dismissal of the application seeking to condone the delay and following the same, the dismissal of the appeal, exceeded its jurisdiction, especially when the appellant had made out valid reasons in their application for getting the delay condoned ?

(iv) When the 7^th respondent, following his impleadment as one of the legal heirs of late Rajamoni Amma, filed A.S No.3/2024 and the same is pending consideration, whether the first appellate court was justified in dismissing the interim application seeking to condone the delay and the consequential appeal suit, filed by the appellant, challenging the very same judgment, despite pointing out his factor in the said interim application?

4. The only question to be considered by this Court in this appeal is whether the First Appellate Court was justified in dismissing