Satheesan K vs VRL Logistics Ltd. Advocate - CHACKO P C — 100120/2023
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 96OrderXLIRule1. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED on 26th March 2026.
AS - CIVIL APPEAL
CNR: KLKT010044332023
e-Filing Number
18-09-2023
Filing Number
101824/2023
Filing Date
18-09-2023
Registration No
100120/2023
Registration Date
18-09-2023
Court
Principal District & Sessions Court / Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kottayam
Judge
1-Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam
Decision Date
26th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Satheesan K
Adv. Roy George
Respondent(s)
VRL Logistics Ltd. Advocate - CHACKO P C
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam
Disposed
Orders In IA
For Hearing
For Hearing
For Hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 26-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-03-2026 | Orders In IA |
| 13-03-2026 | For Hearing |
| 07-03-2026 | For Hearing |
| 24-02-2026 | For Hearing |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Satheesan K v. VRL Logistics Ltd (I.A. No.1/2023 in A.S. No.120/2023) The District Court dismissed Satheesan K's petition seeking to condone a 2016-day delay in filing an appeal against a 2019 trial court judgment. The court found that Satheesan's explanation—that he had entrusted his counsel Adv. Reji Chacko with filing the appeal in March 2019, remained unaware of the advocate's death in 2021, and only discovered the unfiled appeal in 2023—was improbable and untrustworthy. The court held that a prudent litigant would naturally inquire about the appeal number within a reasonable timeframe, and Satheesan's failure to do so for nearly four years demonstrated wilful negligence and lack of bona fides, warranting dismissal under the stringent standard applicable to inordinate delays. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Satheesan K v. VRL Logistics Ltd (I.A. No.1/2023 in A.S. No.120/2023) The District Court dismissed Satheesan K's petition seeking to condone a 2016-day delay in filing an appeal against a 2019 trial court judgment. The court found that Satheesan's explanation—that he had entrusted his counsel Adv. Reji Chacko with filing the appeal in March 2019, remained unaware of the advocate's death in 2021, and only discovered the unfiled appeal in 2023—was improbable and untrustworthy. The court held that a prudent litigant would naturally inquire about the appeal number within a reasonable timeframe, and Satheesan's failure to do so for nearly four years demonstrated wilful negligence and lack of bona fides, warranting dismissal under the stringent standard applicable to inordinate delays. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts