STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR vs HAREENDRANADH G Advocate - T Jayakrishnan, HORMIS ABRAHAM, HORMIS ABRAHAMSABU DINESH. K,, HORMIS ABRAHAMSABU DINESH. K,BAIJU. M. V,, HORMIS ABRAHAMSABU DINESH. K,BAIJU. M. V,LEKHA S,, HORMIS ABRAHAMSABU DINESH. K,BAIJU. M. V,LEKHA S,ANANTHALAKSHMY S,, HORMIS ABRAHAMSABU DINESH. K,BAIJU. M. V,LEKHA S,ANANTHALAKSHMY S,Akhil S Ranjit,, HORMIS ABRAHAMSABU DINESH. K,BAIJU. M. V,LEKHA S,ANANTHALAKSHMY S,Akhil S Ranjit,PADMANABHAN,, HORMIS ABRAHAMSABU DINESH. K,BAIJU. M. V,LEKHA S,ANANTHALAKSHMY S,Akhil S Ranjit,PADMANABHAN,T Jayakrishnan, — 45/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 94, 151 ,Order 41, rule 5. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 23rd March 2026.

AS - CIVIL APPEAL

CNR: KLAL100002362025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

177/2025

Filing Date

07-10-2025

Registration No

45/2025

Registration Date

08-10-2025

Court

Sub Court, Cherthala

Judge

1-Sub Judge and Asst.Sessions Judge, Cherthala

Decision Date

23rd March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Acts & Sections

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Section 94, 151 ,Order 41, rule 5
IA/1/2025 Classification : Delay Condonation Application Section STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTORHAREENDRANADH G
IA/2/2025 Classification : Petition Section STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTORHAREENDRANADH G
IA/3/2025 Classification : Delay Condonation Application Section STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTORHAREENDRANADH G
IA/4/2025 Classification : Carbon Copy Application Section HAREENDRANADH GNATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA
IA/5/2025 Classification : Petition Section HAREENDRANADH GSTATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR
IA/1/2026 Classification : Petition Section STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTORHAREENDRANADH G

Petitioner(s)

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR

Adv. Radhakrishnan. G

TAHASILDAR TALUK OFFICE CHERTHALA

Adv. Radhakrishnan. G

VILLAGE OFFICER EZUPUNNA

Adv. Radhakrishnan. G

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (NH) DIVISION PWD CHERTHALA

Adv. Radhakrishnan. G

Respondent(s)

HAREENDRANADH G Advocate - T Jayakrishnan, HORMIS ABRAHAM, HORMIS ABRAHAMSABU DINESH. K,, HORMIS ABRAHAMSABU DINESH. K,BAIJU. M. V,, HORMIS ABRAHAMSABU DINESH. K,BAIJU. M. V,LEKHA S,, HORMIS ABRAHAMSABU DINESH. K,BAIJU. M. V,LEKHA S,ANANTHALAKSHMY S,, HORMIS ABRAHAMSABU DINESH. K,BAIJU. M. V,LEKHA S,ANANTHALAKSHMY S,Akhil S Ranjit,, HORMIS ABRAHAMSABU DINESH. K,BAIJU. M. V,LEKHA S,ANANTHALAKSHMY S,Akhil S Ranjit,PADMANABHAN,, HORMIS ABRAHAMSABU DINESH. K,BAIJU. M. V,LEKHA S,ANANTHALAKSHMY S,Akhil S Ranjit,PADMANABHAN,T Jayakrishnan,

NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA

THE SECRETARY EZUPUNNA GRAMPANCHAYATH

Adv. AMBILI. P

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Sub Judge and Asst.Sessions Judge, Cherthala

23-03-2026

Disposed

21-03-2026

Order/ Judgement

18-03-2026

Order/ Judgement

11-03-2026

Order/Judgement

09-03-2026

For further hearing

Interim Orders

13-11-2025
Order
05-11-2025
Order

The Sub Judge of Cherthala allowed the State of Kerala's petition to condone a 248-day delay in filing an appeal against a decree in an original suit, finding the delay was caused by the case file going missing from the government pleader's office without willful negligence or dilatory tactics. The court granted the petitioner an opportunity to contest the matter for meritorious disposal, relying on the principle that courts should favor applicants when explanations don't suggest mala fides, and ordered costs in favor of the respondents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The Sub Judge of Cherthala allowed the State of Kerala's petition to condone a 248-day delay in filing an appeal against a decree in an original suit, finding the delay was caused by the case file going missing from the government pleader's office without willful negligence or dilatory tactics. The court granted the petitioner an opportunity to contest the matter for meritorious disposal, relying on the principle that courts should favor applicants when explanations don't suggest mala fides, and ordered costs in favor of the respondents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Sub Court, Cherthala All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case