IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RSA.No. 37 of 2008()
1. C.G.SIVANKUTTY, S/O. GOPALAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. C.M.VARGHESE,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND
For Respondent :SRI.RAJEEV.K.KURUP
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN
Dated :03/06/2008
O R D E R
K.P. Balachandran, J.
---------------------------
R.S.A.No. 37 of 2008
---------------------------
JUDGMENT
The defendant in O.S.No.36/02 on the file of
the Sub Court, Thiruvalla, who has lost his
contentions concurrently both before the trial
court as well as before the first appellate court,
is the appellant.
2. The suit was one for realisation of money.
The facts of the case do not require to be
detailed, as this Court is not called upon to
decide the merits of the findings in the suit.
Suffice to say that the suit was contested and the
trial court, after raising necessary issues for
trial, conducted a trial of the suit and
considering the evidence adduced at trial, which
consisted of oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and DW1
and documentary evidence Exhibits A1 to A3 and A4
series as also Exhibit B1, decreed the suit with
costs. Against the said decree, the present
appellant, who was the defendant in the suit, filed
RSA 37/08 2
appeal before the District Court, Pathanamthitta,
but, that had been filed with a delay condonation
application, as the appeal was not within time.
The first appellate court dismissed I.A.No.72/05,
which was the application to condone delay and
consequently, the appeal filed as A.S.No.210/05 by
the appellant was also dismissed. This Regular
Second Appeal is filed assailing the said
dismissal.
3. What has been produced before this Court is
only the judgment of the first appellate court in
A.S.No.210/05, which reads as follows:
“Heard.I.A.72/05 to condone delay
dismissed. Hence appeal is dismissed
as not maintainable. No cost.”
The order whereby I.A.No.72/05 was dismissed is not
produced. Consequently, this Court is unable to
understand as to how much was the delay, what was
the reason assigned to have the delay condoned and
RSA 37/08 3
what were the reasons, which weighed with the
court, to disallow condonation of delay prayed for.
This appeal filed by the appellant as an indigent
person was coming up for admission today, though it
was filed as early as on 5.6.2006. Still, the
appellant did not think it necessary or proper to
produce the order on I.A.No.72/05 to enable this
Court to consider the correctness of the order of
the court below refusing to condone the delay in
filing A.S.No.210/05. Further, no substantial
question of law arises also for consideration by
this Court in this Regular Second Appeal.
For all the above reasons, refusing admission,
I dismiss this Regular Second Appeal in limine.
3rd June, 2008 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge)
tkv