IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RSA.No. 665 of 2005()
1. P.T.YOHANNA, AGED 66 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. K.O.VASUDEVAN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.R.HARIKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN
Dated :26/06/2008
O R D E R
K.P. BALACHANDRAN, J.
----------------------------------------------------
C. M. Application 434 of 2005
& R.S.A. No 665 of 2005
---------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th June 2008
JUDGMENT
This is an application seeking condonation of 34 days delay in
filing the Regular Second Appeal. Respondent is served and service is
complete. Counsel for the appellant is absent and there is no
representation on his behalf.
2. The judgment appealed against is dated 30.11.2004 and copy
of the said judgment was applied for on 01.12.2004. Stamp papers were
called for on 16.02.2005 and produced on 21.02.2005 and copy was
taken delivery of on 03.03.2005 namely on the date fixed to receive
copy. In the affidavit filed by the appellant in support of the application,
the reason assigned for the delay is that after obtaining the copy he
suffered a stroke in the second week of March and got bedridden for
three months and had to undergo physiotherapy. It is also stated that his
condition of health was very critical and he suffered two heart attacks in
the meanwhile and that after convalescing for three months he contacted
his lawyer and entrusted the file for processing the appeal memorandum
RSA 665/05 2
in the last week of June 2005 and thus there occurred delay of 34
days in filing the appeal. There is absolutely no scrap of paper to
show that the appellant suffered a stroke and was bedridden for
three months as stated and was undergoing physiotherapy. There is
also no evidence to show that during the said period he suffered
two heart attacks. Apart from the bald averments there is nothing to
show that the appellant has got any just and sufficient cause for not
filing the appeal within time. The delay does not stand properly
explained. In the result, refusing to condone the delay in filing the
Regular Second Appeal, I dismiss this C.M. Application.
Consequently the R.S.A also stands dismissed.
Sd/-
K.P. BALACHANDRAN
Judge
26/06/2008
en
[true copy]