IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RSA.No. 335 of 2008()
1. PERIYAT YESODHA, W/O.LATE BALAKRISHNAN,
... Petitioner
2. SULOCHANA, D/O.LATE BALAKRISHNAN,
3. VASANTHI, D/O.LATE BALAKRISHNAN,
4. SINDHU, D/O.LATE BALAKRISHNAN,
Vs
1. KAYIPRAVAN KIZHAKKINIYIL RAGHAVAN,
... Respondent
2. MEENAKSHI, D/O.LATE KELA PODUVAL,
3. THANKAMANI, D/O.LATE KELA PODUVAL,
4. OMANA, D/O.LATE KELA PODUVAL,
5. RUGMINI, D/O.LATE KELA PODUVAL,
6. USHAKUMARI, D/O.LATE KELA PODUVAL,
7. CHEMMANCHERI LAKSHMI, W/O.LATE GOPALAN,
8. SARADHA, D/O.LATE GOPALAN,
9. RAJESH, S/O.LATE GOPALAN,
10. K.K.RAJESH, S/O.LATE YESODA,
11. K.K.RATHEESH, LATE YESODA, ERAMAM AMSOM
For Petitioner :SRI.C.MURALIKRISHNAN (PAYYANUR)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN
Dated :04/06/2008
O R D E R
K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J.
------------------------------------------------
R. S. A. No.335 of 2008
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of June, 2008
JUDGMENT
This R.S.A is posted to this day for
admission hearing as a last chance as on
26/05/08 when the matter came up for
consideration also counsel for the appellants
was absent and on that day time was prayed for
on his behalf. All the same, today counsel for
the appellants is absent and there is not even
representation on his behalf. The judgment of
the first appellate court in A.S.96/05 is what
is assailed in this Regular Second Appeal. The
judgment of the first appellate court reads as
follows:-
“Application (I.A.1092/05) for condoning
the delay of 442 days in filing this appeal is
dismissed. Hence the appeal is not admitted
holding that it is barred by limitation and same is
rejected.”
R. S. A. No.335 of 2008 -2-
2. The order on I.A.1092/05 is also
produced. It is seen that the reasons stated
for condonation of delay by the appellant was
that she was laid up with hypertension and
uterus bleeding and therefore, she could not
file the appeal in time. There are altogether
four appellants in A.S.96/05. Any one of the
appellants could do the needful for filing the
appeal in time. The respondent was vehemently
opposing the delay condonation application.
The appellant has tendered evidence as PW1 and
got marked Exts.A1 to A8. The court below has
observed that Ext.A1 medical certificate
showed that one of the appellants therein
(name not seen mentioned) was advised to take
rest from 18/09/04 to 04/10/04 as she was
suffering from hypertension and that Ext.A2
showed that she was admitted in hospital on
06/05/05 to 08/05/05 in connection with uterus
R. S. A. No.335 of 2008 -3-
bleeding. Exts.A3 to A5 scan reports also
showed that she had uterus bleeding. Those
certificates were quite insufficient to
substantiate the case of the appellants that
delay of 442 days occurred for reason of the
illness. It was in the above circumstances
that the court below dismissed the application
for condonation of delay apart from the fact
that the certificate did cover only about 17
to 18 days and the delay was of 442 days in
filing the appeal. The fact also remains that
illness of one of the appellants is not
sufficient to condone the delay when there are
altogether four appellants in the appeal. The
first appellate court rightly did not find any
just and sufficient cause to condone the delay
and it was consequent on dismissal of the
delay condonation petition that the appeal was
also dismissed as barred by limitation. I
R. S. A. No.335 of 2008 -4-
cannot but confirm the said finding. There is
absolutely no substantial question of law for
consideration in this appeal. This R.S.A is
hence, dismissed in limine refusing admission.
K.P.BALACHANDRAN,
JUDGE
kns/-