IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RSA.No. 1210 of 2008()
1. KOCHUKUNJU PILLAI NARAYANAN PILLAI
... Petitioner
Vs
1. M.R.VASANTHI AND OTHERS
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.R.RAMADAS
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN
Dated :26/03/2009
O R D E R
K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J.
------------------------------------------------
C. M. Application No.944 of 2008 in
R. S. A. No.1210 of 2008
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of March, 2009
JUDGMENT
C.M.Application No.944 of 2008 is an
application seeking for condonation of delay
of as much as 615 days in filing the appeal.
Condonation of delay is opposed by counsel for
the respondents. The judgment and decree under
appeal is dt.20/12/05. Application for copy
was made on 21/12/05. Stamp papers called for
on 08/02/06 were produced on 14/02/06 and copy
of judgment and decree was taken delivery of
on 16/02/06, but the appeal is filed almost
after two years on 21/01/08.
2. In the affidavit filed by the
appellant in support of the C.M. Application,
it is his case that the appeal ought to have
been filed on or before 11/05/06, but due to
intervention of some of the close relatives
R. S. A. No.1210 of 2008 -2-
and friends of the appellant and first
respondent, a compromise talk was going on as
the appellant and first respondent are
relatives and the appellant was also eager to
settle the dispute between them, but that
because of the adamant stand of the first
respondent’s father, the compromise did not
materialise; that the first respondent has now
filed a suit as O.S.375/07 before the
Munsiff’s Court, Chengannur on 15/12/07
against the appellant for declaration of her
title over the plaint schedule property and
hence, immediately on receipt of notice in the
said suit, this appeal is filed on 21/01/08
and the delay of 615 days caused in filing the
appeal, in the circumstances, be condoned.
3. It is too much to say that the
appellant who has taken delivery of copy of
decree and judgment appealed against on
R. S. A. No.1210 of 2008 -3-
16/02/06 waited for one year and eleven months
making attempts at settling the matter. If at
all there is any scope for settlement, it
could only fade away when right of appeal is
lost and the explanation offered cannot be
swallowed as such to be true. The explanation
offered is only a ruse to get the delay
condoned. There is no just and sufficient
cause to condone the delay of 615 days in
filing the appeal on such unbelievable
explanations and the reasons stated cannot be
accepted as sufficient ground to condone the
delay.
4. In the result, refusing to condone the
delay of as much as 615 days in filing this
appeal, this C.M. Application is dismissed.
R.S.A.1210/08
C.M.Application No.944/08 seeking for
condonation of delay of as much as 615 days in
R. S. A. No.1210 of 2008 -4-
filing the RSA is dismissed today.
Consequently, this RSA is hopelessly barred by
limitation. This RSA is hence, dismissed.
K.P.BALACHANDRAN,
JUDGE
kns/-