IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RSA.No. 672 of 2005()
1. REJI W/O. VARGHESE K.V.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. N.S. PETER, S/O. SAVARIRAJ UDAYAR,
... Respondent
2. N.R. PICHAMUTHU, S/O. R.S. RAYAPPAN,
3. DAVID, S/O. N.R. PICHAMUTHU,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.SURENDRA MOHAN
For Respondent :SRI.P.G.PARAMESWARA PANICKER (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN
Dated :02/07/2008
O R D E R
K.P. Balachandran, J.
---------------------------
C.M.Appl.No.439 of 2005 in
R.S.A.No.672 of 2005
---------------------------
JUDGMENT
This is an application for condonation of delay
of 96 days in filing the appeal. In the affidavit
filed by the counsel for the appellant, who was
appearing in the court below in A.S.No.50/00, he
has stated that the appeal was disposed of on
13.8.2004; that his Clerk was on leave for twenty
days from 3.8.2004 till 23.8.2004; that therefore,
he entrusted another Clerk to file application for
obtaining certified copies of the judgment and
decree; that the Clerk told him that application
was filed on 14.8.2004 itself; that since the
copies were not received and even the stamp papers
were not called for despite lapse of months, his
Clerk made enquiries in the office of the District
Court on 14.1.2005 and then he was informed that no
copy application was filed and that immediately on
the next day, i.e. on 15.1.2005, a copy application
RSA 672/05 2
was made and certified copies of the judgment and
decree were received on 29.1.2005, but, this appeal
could be filed only as late as on 3.3.2005.
2. There is no explanation for the delay even
in the affidavit filed by the appellant in support
of the application for condonation of delay as to
why it so happened that despite receipt of copies
on 29.1.2005, the appeal was filed only as late as
on 3.3.2005, in a case where sufficient delay had
already occurred. I do not find any reason why the
delay from 29.1.2005 to 3.3.2005 is to be condoned,
even accepting the affidavits of the appellant as
also her counsel, who was appearing in the court
below.
In the result, I dismiss this C.M. Application
for want of any just and sufficient cause for
condonation of delay. Consequently, the Regular
Second Appeal also stands dismissed.
2nd July, 2008 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge)
tkv