IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RSA.No. 1311 of 2005()
1. ANNAMMA ALIAS OMANA, D/O.BHAGAVATHY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DANIEL NADAR VARGHESE NADAR,
... Respondent
2. THRESIAMMA, KANAKUZHI THADATHARIKATHU
3. BENEDICT, S/O.MANEUL, KALLUVETTANKUZHY
4. MICHAEL, DO. DO.
5. MARTIN, DO. DO.
6. SABY, DO. DO.
7. BABY, DO. DO.
8. DANIEL NADAR, CHELLAYAN NADAR,
9. BHAGAVATHY MARY, W/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN
10. BABY, S/O.CHELLAYYAN NADAR,
11. KOCHUKUTTAN MADALAMPARA, KENATTUVILA
12. JOHNSON, DO. DO.
13. ALPHONSA, DO. DO.
14. STEPHEN, DO. DO.
For Petitioner :SRI.V.SURESH
For Respondent :SRI.P.S.RAMESH KUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN
Dated :18/06/2008
O R D E R
K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J.
------------------------------------------------
I. A. No.1291 of 2008,
C. M. Application No.833 of 2005 &
R. S. A. No.1311 of 2005
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of June, 2008
JUDGMENT
This Court vide order dt.02/06/08
directed the counsel for the appellant who was
granted two weeks’ time as prayed for to cure
the defects, that defects are to be cured
positively in two weeks. The defect was that
service was not complete on respondents 3, 5,
6, 9 and 11 to 14 on C.M. Application
No.833/05 seeking condonation of delay of 155
days in filing the R.S.A. The R.S.A is one
filed on 15/11/05 with a delay of 155 days.
Even after lapse of two and a half years the
appellant was not able to have notice served
on the respondents in the C.M. Application
enabling this Court to pass order one way or
the other in the delay condonation petition.
Today counsel for the petitioner has filed
R. S. A. No.1311 of 2005 -2-
I.A.1291/08 seeking for condonation of delay
in taking steps. On perusal of the affidavit
accompanying C.M.Application No.833/05, it is
seen that the reasons assigned to have the
delay condoned is quite unsatisfactory. The
judgment under appeal was delivered on
31/01/04; copy of the judgment was applied for
on 03/02/04; stamp papers called for on
01/06/04 were produced on 04/06/04 and though
copy was ready and 18/03/05 was fixed as the
date to appear and receive copy, it was
received only after four months on 18/07/05.
According to the petitioner, he was under the
impression that his counsel would intimate him
when copy is received and that in the
meanwhile, he fell sick and was suffering from
Asthma and Bronchitis and therefore, he could
go over to the office only on 20/10/05 and
could understand that the copies were taken
delivery of by his lawyer on 18/07/05.
R. S. A. No.1311 of 2005 -3-
2. There is absolutely no evidence to
show that the petitioner was having any
ailment or that he was bedridden nor does he
say that he was bedridden. Such lame excuses
to cover up the wanton neglect on the part of
the appellant coupled with the neglect on the
part of the counsel or his clerk to receive
copy of judgment when date was fixed to
receive copy are not circumstances which
enable such inordinate delay being condoned.
3. It is worthy to note that the
successful party cannot wait indefinitely to
see whether any appeal is filed from the
judgment in his favour. Rights that have
accrued to the successful party by reason of
non-filing of the appeal cannot be lightly
interfered with also when the defeated party
files appeal at his own whims and fancies
taking his own sweet time. I am not satisfied
that just and sufficient cause exists to
R. S. A. No.1311 of 2005 -4-
condone the delay of as much as 155 days in
filing the appeal.
4. In the result, refusing to extent time
prayed for vide I.A.1291/08, I dismiss the
said I.A as also C.M.Application No.833/05 in
compliance with the order dt.02/06/08.
Consequently, this R.S.A also stands
dismissed.
K.P.BALACHANDRAN,
JUDGE
kns/-
