High Court Kerala High Court

Haridasan vs Rajan on 25 November, 2010

Kerala High Court
Haridasan vs Rajan on 25 November, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA.No. 2370 of 2010()


1. HARIDASAN, S/O.KARUNAKARAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. RAJAN, S/O.MADHAVAN,
                       ...       Respondent

2. ANILKUMAR, ROHINI, KULANGARA BHAGUM,

3. THE MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

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

 Dated :25/11/2010

 O R D E R
             A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.
                       - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                     C.M.Appln. No.3079 OF 2010
                     & M.A.C.A.No.2370 OF 2010
                   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                 Dated this the 25th day of November, 2010

                                 JUDGMENT

Basheer, J.

The prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act is to condone the delay of 604 days in filing the appeal.

2. The impugned award was passed by the Tribunal on

November 17, 2008. According to the petitioner/appellant, he had

made arrangements to file an appeal and the Clerk attached to his

counsel before the Tribunal had informed him that certified copy of the

award would be obtained only by the end of March 2009. Though

frequent enquiries were made by the petitioner, he did not get any

information from the Clerk. Thereafter, in May 2010, he contacted his

counsel, who informed him that his Clerk had left his office.

Immediately, arrangements were made to get the copy of the award.

3. The endorsements on the certified copy of the award would

show that copy application was filed only on July 24, 2010. Even if the

version of the petitioner that he had contacted his counsel in May 2010

MACA.No.2370/2010 2

is to be believed, there is no explanation why steps were not taken

immediately to apply for a copy. Still further, there is no explanation

why the petitioner waited till May 2010 to make enquiry about the

copy.

In any view of the matter, we are not at all satisfied with the so

called explanation offered by the petitioner to condone the inordinate

delay. Therefore, the delay petition is dismissed. Consequently, the

appeal is also dismissed.

A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE

P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE

sv.

MACA.No.2370/2010 2