IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RSA.No. 54 of 2008()
1. BHARGAVI, W/O. SANKARANKUTTY,
... Petitioner
2. SIVARAMAN, S/O. BHARGAVI,
3. SIVANANDAN, S/O. BHARGAVI,
Vs
1. VIJAYAN, S/O. KOCHUKRISHNAN,
... Respondent
2. KARTHIYAYANI, W/O. CHAKKAPPAN,
3. GHOSH, S/O. CHAKKAPPAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
For Respondent :SRI.N.RAGHURAJ
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN
Dated :23/06/2008
O R D E R
K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J.
------------------------------------------------
C. M. Application No.48 of 2008 &
R. S. A. No.54 of 2008
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2008
JUDGMENT
This is an application for condonation of
delay of 1056 days in filing the R.S.A. The
judgment appealed against is one delivered on
29/10/04; copy thereof was applied for only on
01/06/05 and despite delivery of copy on
18/06/05, this R.S.A is filed only on 15/01/08
after two and a half years. The affidavit
filed in support of the application is sworn
to by the first appellant in the appeal. It is
her case that the copy application was filed
only on 13/01/05 after more than two and a
half months of delivering the judgment and on
her enquiries with her lawyer she was told
that the application got delayed because he
had a change of his clerk. She further states
that moreover, her lawyer is a political
R. S. A. No.54 of 2008 -2-
activist and he was away in Delhi for such
purposes. According to the first appellant she
was under the bonafide impression that the
appeal is still pending since whenever she
contacted her lawyer she was informed that the
appeal is pending. She states that she is a
lady with no much understanding of these
issues, but recently she has come to know that
some persons are attempting to measure the
property and then she went to her lawyer and
found that the appeal had been dismissed long
back. According to her, there is no wilful
laches or omissions from her side and that the
entire issue took place only on account of
lack of communication between herself and her
lawyer. It is on the above ground that she
seeks for condonation of delay of as much as
1056 days in filing the appeal.
2. On carefully going through the
averment in the affidavit filed by the first
R. S. A. No.54 of 2008 -3-
appellant, I see that this is a case where the
first appellant or her sons who are the second
and third appellants or even their lawyer in
the court below did not take any interest at
all in properly doing the needful in time to
prefer a second appeal. Their laches cannot be
a ground to take the respondents to task by
condoning the delay of as much as 1056 days in
filing the appeal. The rights that have
accrued to the respondents by reason of non-
filing of the appeal by the defeated
party/appellants cannot be interfered with
lightly for the wanton neglect on the part of
the appellants in prosecuting their case. No
reason at all is assigned as to why appellants
2 and 3 who are the sons of the first
appellant did not do the needful to prefer
appeal in time. I am of the view that there is
absolutely no just and sufficient cause to
condone the delay of as much as 1056 days in
R. S. A. No.54 of 2008 -4-
filing the R.S.A.
3. In the result, refusing to condone the
delay of as much as 1056 days in filing the
appeal, I dismiss this C.M. Application.
Consequently, the R.S.A also stands dismissed.
K.P.BALACHANDRAN,
JUDGE
kns/-