Jabbar S v. Chandipurachetta Muhammed (deceased) and others
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- N.K. Balakrishnan
- Judgment Date
- 2013-09-03
- Court Decision / Holding
- Consequential dismissal of the appeal; The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed.
- Final Disposition
- Dismissed ,
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- JABBAR S
Respondents
- CHANDIPURACHETTA MUHAMMED (DIED)
- FATHUMMA CHANDIPURACHETTA (DIED)
- CHANDIPURACHETTA KADEEJABI
- CHANDIPURACHETTA IRIFABI
- CHANDIPURACHETTA ABDULRAHIMAN
- CHANDIPURACHETTA RUHIYATH
- CHANDIPURACHETTA MOHAMMED HANEEFA
- CHANDIPURACHETTA AHAMED RAFEEQUE
- CHADNIPURACHETTA MUDASSAR
- CHANDIPURACHETTA SHIHABUDEEN
- CHANDIPURACHETTA JALALUDHEEN
- CHANDIPURACHETTA AHAMEDKHAN
- CHANDIPURACHETTA ANISABHAY
- PUTHIYAVEEDU SAINABABI
- NADUMTHIRU KHADIYABI
- NEDUMTHIRU MOHAMMEDKOYA
- NEDUMTHIRU ATTAKOYA
- NEDUMTHIRU SAYEDKOYA
- NEDUMTHIRU ATTABI
- SURAMBIYODA MOHAMMED
- KASMIKOYA SUIRAMBIYODA
- CHANDIPURACHETTA AHAMEDKUNHI (DIED)
- CHANDIPURACHETTA ABDULLAKOYA (DIED)
- PALIYATHIYODA NALLAKOYA
- PALIYATHIYODA KUNHIKIDAVE
- KATTUPURAM NOORULLA
- KATTUPURAM FATHIMA
- AMEENULLA KATTUPURAM
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • SRI.M.R.SARIN PANICKER
Counsels for Respondents
- • SRI.P.K.JOSE
- • SMT.TESSY JOSE
- • SRI.SHABU SREEDHARAN
Case Synopsis & Summary
This Regular Second Appeal concerns Jabbar S., the 9th defendant, challenging the dismissal of his appeal for condonation of delay in filing A.S. No.1/2012 arising from District Court, Lakshadweep, Kavaratti Island. The trial court had decreed the suit on 1 June 1991. The appellant sought condonation for a delay of 7,435 days in filing the appeal before the Lower Appellate Court by I.A. No.11/2012. The lower appellate court dismissed the condonation petition. In this High Court appeal, the counsel for the appellant argues that the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit justify condonation. He contests the position that the delay is inordinate, noting he resided in Neeleswaram from 1984 and worked in Qatar from 1993, returning in 1998, and that he learned of the decree only on verification on 22 November 2011, after which he filed the appeal with a delay condonation. The respondents oppose on the grounds that there is no sufficient cause, the delay spans over two decades, and that the appellant should have pursued the matter earlier. The High Court reviews the evidence, cases, and the conduct of the parties and agrees that liberal treatment cannot be applied given the prolonged delay and the surrounding circumstances, upholding the lower court’s dismissal and dismissing the Regular Second Appeal.
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The appellant contends that the delay should be condoned given his long residence abroad and his non-receipt of information about the disposal of the suit. He asserts that from 1993 he was in Qatar and was not aware of the ongoing proceedings; he returned in 1998 and, upon discovering the decree on verification on 22 November 2011, filed the appeal with a petition to condone the delay of 7,435 days. He explains that he had instructed his counsel to monitor the case and alleges that he learned of the decree only recently. He relied on the general principle of liberal indulgence in condonation cases, asserting that the delay was not intentional and that substantial justice demands consideration of the merits. He urges this Court to apply a flexible approach given his bonafide belief that the suit was pending and that he acted promptly after obtaining knowledge of the decree.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents oppose condonation of delay, arguing that there is no substantial cause for the extraordinary lapse of 20-plus years. They emphasize the decree dated 1 June 1991, the likelihood that the appellant should have discovered it earlier, and the fact that related appeals involving other defendants were dismissed long ago. They contend that the appellant denied knowledge of the proceedings for many years and that the delay cannot be excused merely on alleged foreign residence or counsel’s failure to inform. They point to the appellant’s own statements that he returned from Qatar in 1998 and still took no steps for many years, and they highlight the need for a strict stance given the long pendency and the legal consequences of late proceedings.
Cited Precedents (1)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sandhya Rani Sarkar v. Sudha Rani Debi and others | 1978 (2) SCC 116 | Distinguished | Cited to discuss liberal condonation; facts in Sandhya Rani Sarkar involve a different context; here delay exceeds 20 years, so the liberal approach is not applicable. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Jabbar S v. Chandipurachetta Muhammed (deceased) and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.