High Court Kerala High Court

George Joseph vs Jose on 6 January, 2010

Kerala High Court
George Joseph vs Jose on 6 January, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RFA.No. 795 of 2009()


1. GEORGE JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. JOSE, S/O.PAVIYANCSE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. SECRETARY,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.)

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

 Dated :06/01/2010

 O R D E R
                                   A.K. Basheer,
                                            &
                          M. L. Joseph Francis, JJ.
                   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                         C.M.Appln.No.2131 of 2009
                                            &
                            R.F.A. No. 795 of 2009
                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                  Dated this the 6th day of January, 2010
                                   JUDGMENT

C.M.Appln.No.2131 of 2009 is to condone the delay of 650 days

in filing the above appeal in a suit for recovery of money.

2. Admittedly the judgment was rendered by the court below on

October 31, 2007. Yet again, indisputably an application for obtaining

certified copy of the decree and judgment was filed only on October

15, 2009. The copy was ready on November 2, 2009 and after

obtaining the copy, the appeal has been preferred on November 24,

2009. In paragraph 3 of the affidavit filed in support of the application

it is stated thus:

“”I was totally kept in the dark either about the
listing of the case for trial or the judgment
delivered in the suit and this explains the
reason as to why no oral evidence was adduced
on my behalf even. There were a series of
settlement talks between the parties and the
animosity arose since the plaintiff thought that
I had profited by the subsequent sale
transaction. I knew about the verdict only when
the plaintiff threatened me with coercive steps
in execution of the decree and I therefore took
steps for filing appeal.”

RFA.795/09 2

We are afraid the explanation or reason stated for the delay is totally

unsatisfactory and unacceptable. Therefore the application for

condonation of delay is dismissed.

Consequently the appeal is rejected.

A.K. Basheer
Judge.

M.L. Joseph Francis,
Judge.

an.