IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RSA.No. 259 of 2007()
1. SUBRAMANIAN, AGED 4O YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. BHASKARAN NAIR, S/O.PURAKAT
... Respondent
2. PANKAJAKSHI, AGED 50, D/O.PURAKAT
3. DEVU, AGED 46,D/O..PURAKAT
4. KRISHNAKUMAR, AGED 45,
5. ACHU, AGED 42, D/O.PURAKAT BHASKARAN
6. NANDINI, AGED 40, D/O.PURAKAT BHASKARAN
7. GOPALU, AGED 35, S/O.PURAKAT BHASKARAN
8. PRABHA, AGED 35,S/O.PURAKAT BHASKARAN
9. SATHI, AGED 29, D/O.PURAKAT BHASKARAN
10. SIVAN, AGED 27,S/O.PURAKAT BHASKARAN
11. RAJU, AGED 25,S/O.PURAKAT BHASKARAN
12. KOCHAKAN, AGED 76,S/O.ARAKAPARAMBIL
For Petitioner :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
For Respondent :SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN
Dated :23/05/2008
O R D E R
K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J.
------------------------------------------------
C. M. Appl.158 of 2007 &
R. S. A. No.259 of 2007
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2008
JUDGMENT
This an application for condonation of
delay of 649 days in filing the R.S.A.
Respondents 1 to 11 have filed counter
strongly objecting to the condonation of delay
prayed for.
2. The judgment assailed in this appeal
is the judgment passed by the first appellate
court in A.S.204/99 on 17/01/05. Copy of the
said judgment had been applied for on 19/01/05
and date fixed to appear to receive copy was
on 03/03/05 though it was received only on
04/03/05. However, the appeal is filed only on
09/03/07.
3. The above details are not there in the
affidavit filed in support of C.M.Appl.
No.158/07. According to the appellant/
R. S. A. No.259 of 2007 -2-
petitioner, he used to make consistent
enquiries with his lawyer in the court below
to know the outcome of the appeal, but then he
had always been told that the appeal has not
been disposed of and further that his counsel
used to inform him that there has been some
decision in the case and thereupon, he asked
for the authenticated copy of the judgment and
decree but it was not given to him even after
much persistent attempts and that ultimately
he could gather that the case has gone against
him. He further alleges that immediately all
the required steps were taken for getting the
certified copy and that his Advocate
thereafter started telling him that he has
applied for getting the certified copy but
only when he got the certified copy ultimately
that he could know that the certified copy was
obtained much earlier and that his counsel did
not inform him. It is his further case that
R. S. A. No.259 of 2007 -3-
when asked, he was told that the counsel
happened to misplace it and that was traced
out only then and that there is no wilful
negligence or omission on his part in filing
the second appeal in time.
4. It is worthy to note that he does not
mention the name of any lawyer except
mentioning in the affidavit “my lawyer”. The
affidavit has been sworn to behind the back of
the lawyer and consequently, the lawyer in the
court below is unaware of such serious
allegations that are being made against him
which would be sufficient for proceedings
being taken against him for professional
misconduct. By making wanton allegations,
against a lawyer behind his back, a party
cannot seek to have the relief of having delay
condoned and that too delay of as much as 649
days. There is absolutely no merit or just and
sufficient cause to have the delay of 649 days
R. S. A. No.259 of 2007 -4-
in filing the R.S.A condoned.
5. In the result, refusing the prayer to
condone the delay of as much as 649 days, I
dismiss this C.M. Application. Consequently,
the R.S.A also stands dismissed.
K.P.BALACHANDRAN,
JUDGE
kns/-