IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RSA.No. 661 of 2005()
1. BALAN, S/O.ARAMUGHAN, PADINJARE PURAKKAL
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KUMARAN, S/O.AYYAPPAN @ APPU,
... Respondent
2. RAMAN, S/O. DO.
3. SUBRAMANIAN, S/O. DO.
4. SAROJINI, D/O. DO.
5. CHANDRAN, S/O.ARUMUGHAN, DO. DO.
6. GOVINDAN, DO. DO.
For Petitioner :SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.C.MURALIKRISHNAN (PAYYANUR)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN
Dated :29/05/2008
O R D E R
K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J.
------------------------------------------------
C. M. Application No.429 of 2005 &
R. S. A. No.661 of 2005
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of May, 2008
JUDGMENT
This appeal is posted at Bench today as
steps are not taken for notice being issued to
respondents 2, 5 and 6 on C.M. Application
No.429/05 seeking condonation of delay of as
much as 294 days in filing the appeal. The
judgment under appeal was passed on 10/04/03
and this appeal is filed after more than two
years on 16/05/05. Application for copy of
judgment is seen filed on 22/04/03 and the
date notified to receive copy was 06/05/04.
According to the appellant/petitioner, the
appeal should have been filed on or before
24/07/04, but could be filed only on 16/05/05.
For the delay of 294 days in filing the
appeal, the reason stated by the appellant in
the affidavit filed by him in support of C.M.
R. S. A. No.661 of 2005 -2-
Application No.429/05 is that soon after
receipt of copy of judgment appealed against,
the clerk attached to the office of the lawyer
sent letter intimating that copy has been
received, but the letter was not received by
him and he was under the impression that he
will be intimated on receipt of copy and that
he went over to the office of the lawyer and
made enquiries on 16/04/05 as he did not get
any intimation and only then could he know
that copy was received long back and a letter
was sent to him. It is his further case that
as the courts were closed for summer holidays
the appeal was filed only on the reopening of
courts. In short, the appellant is attributing
reasons for delay to non-receipt of letter
issued by the lawyer’s clerk to him. The said
averment is not supported by the lawyer’s
clerk and the affidavit is filed by the
appellant behind the back of his lawyer’s
R. S. A. No.661 of 2005 -3-
clerk. Assigning some reason or the other is
no ground to have delay of 294 days condoned
and to have the appeal received on file. There
is no meaning in retaining the C.M.
Application on file after three years of its
filing especially when no steps are taken to
complete service on the delay condonation
application. The request made by the counsel
for more time to complete service of notice on
the delay condonation application does not
deserve any consideration in the circumstances
in which the delay of 294 days has been caused
in filing the appeal and there is no just and
sufficient cause to condone the said delay.
In the result, I dismiss this C.M.
Application. Consequently, the R.S.A also
stands dismissed.
K.P.BALACHANDRAN,
JUDGE
kns/-