High Court Kerala High Court

Anilkumar vs V.Abdul Latheef on 5 April, 2010

Kerala High Court
Anilkumar vs V.Abdul Latheef on 5 April, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA.No. 3244 of 2009()


1. ANILKUMAR, CHEMPAKASSERIL KIZHAKKATHIL,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. V.ABDUL LATHEEF,
                       ...       Respondent

2. BRAHMAN, GANAPATHIVILASAM,

3. THE BRANCH MANAGER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.RAJENDRAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI

 Dated :05/04/2010

 O R D E R
              A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.
                       - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                      M.A.C.A.No.3244 OF 2009 &
                       C.M.Appln.No.3854 of 2009
                   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                      Dated this the 5th day of April, 2010

                                 JUDGMENT

Basheer, J.

In this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the

prayer is to condone the delay of 584 days in filing the appeal.

2. It is averred by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in

support of the application that he was told by the clerk attached to the

office of his counsel that he would be informed as soon as the copy of

the award was received.

3. After the receipt of the copy, he came to know that his

claim petition was dismissed. His Advocate directed his clerk to

entrust the case to a lawyer in the High Court for filing the appeal. But

according to the petitioner as the case bundle was misplaced by the

Clerk, he could not take steps in this regard. The case bundle was

traced out only on October 14, 2009. Thus there occurred the delay of

584 days.

4. It may be noticed that the award was passed on October 31,

MACA.No.3244/2009 2

2007. The appeal is filed with the free copy of the award furnished by

the Tribunal which is seen to have been delivered to the appellant on

February 15, 2008.

We have carefully perused the affidavit. We are not at all

satisfied with the so called explanation offered by the petitioner. More

importantly, the Clerk because of whose lapse the delay has occurred,

has not even bothered to file an affidavit. The averments in the

affidavit are totally vague, unconvincing and unsatisfactory. Therefore,

the delay petition is dismissed. Consequently, the Appeal is also

dismissed.

A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE

P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE

sv.

MACA.No.3244/2009 2

MACA.No.3244/2009 2