IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RSA.No. 1119 of 2008()
1. NALINI, W/O.KUTTAN, AGED 48 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DANAVAN ALIAS DANASEELAN, S/O.RAJAPPAN,
... Respondent
2. ARUN SAGAR, AGED 23 YEARS,
3. ABHITHA, AGED 21 YEARS,
For Petitioner :SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
For Respondent :SRI.N.HARIDAS
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN
Dated :31/03/2009
O R D E R
K.P. Balachandran, J.
--------------------------
R.S.A.No.1119 of 2008 &
C.M.Appl.No.867 of 2008
--------------------------
JUDGMENT
Heard counsel on both sides.
2. C.M.Appl.No.867/08 is an application seeking
for condonation of delay of as much as 209 days in
filing the Regular Second Appeal. The judgment
appealed against is one delivered on 11.12.2007.
Copy of judgment was applied for on 12.12.2007.
Stamp papers called for on 7.01.2008 were produced
only on 10.01.2008. Though the date fixed to appear
and receive the copy was 17.01.2008, copy was taken
delivery of only after about a month on 15.02.2008.
This Regular Second Appeal is filed, after about
nine months therefrom, on 10.11.2008.
2. In the affidavit filed by the appellant in
support of the C.M. Application, the explanation
offered for the delay is that she has changed her
residence in the meanwhile and due to an oversight,
RSA 1119/08 2
she failed to inform the changed address to her
counsel and so she did not receive the
communication issued by her counsel regarding the
judgment and decree and receipt of certified copy
of the judgment under appeal. She further states
that she was not well and was in great financial
stringency and came to know about the judgment and
decree and receipt of certified copy of the
judgment under appeal only on 23.10.2008 and it is,
therefore, that there occurred a delay of as much
as 209 days in filing the Regular Second Appeal.
The explanation offered itself shows that she did
not make any enquiry with respect to her appeal
pending in the lower appellate court or the
judgment passed therein or whether copy was applied
for from 11.12.2007, the date on which the judgment
in A.S.No.256/06 was pronounced, till 23.10.2008,
on which day, according to the appellant, she came
to know of the judgment and receipt of copy of
judgment. It was up to the appellant to prosecute
RSA 1119/08 3
her cause promptly and her failure to do the
needful in the case cannot disturb the findings of
the appellate court after a long delay putting the
respondents to further harassment. The reasons
offered are not sufficient cause to condone the
delay of as much as 209 days in filing the Regular
Second Appeal.
In the result, I dismiss this C.M. Application.
R.S.A.No.1119/08
C.M.Appl.No.867/08 filed seeking for condonation
of delay of as much as 209 days in filing the
Regular Second Appeal is dismissed today.
Therefore, this Regular Second Appeal is hopelessly
barred by limitation.
In the result, I dismiss this Regular Second
Appeal.
31st March, 2009 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge)
tkv