IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Mat.Appeal.No. 11 of 2004()
1. NARAYANAN, MANAVALENCHERRY HOUSE,
... Petitioner
2. RADHAMONY W/O. NARAYANAN, DO. DO.
Vs
1. BEENAMOL K.V. D/O. VELAYUDHAN,
... Respondent
2. MOHANDAS M.N., S/O. NARAYANAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY
For Respondent :SRI.DILIP MOHAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :27/10/2009
O R D E R
R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
————————————————–
C.M.Application No.197 OF 2004
&
Mat.Appeal No.11 OF 2004
—————————————————–
DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009
OR D E R/ J U D G M E N T
Basant, J.
This application is to condone the long delay of 1055 days in
filing an appeal. The appeal is directed against an ex parte order
passed against the appellants as also their son. The operative
portion of the order shows that the appellants are made only
partly liable. Be that as it may, the prayer is to condone the long
delay of 1055 days. Vague and sweeping assertions are made
that the appellants had entrusted their son, the co-respondent to
contest the proceedings. He allegedly did not, and subsequently
all of them were set ex parte. The court proceeded to pass the
impugned order. The son is not available even now. Steps for
execution have been initiated against the appellants. It is at this
juncture that the appellants have come to this Court with this
appeal along with the application to condone the long delay.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants.
We have perused the affidavit. We are not at all satisfied that
C.M.Application No.197 OF 2004
& Mat.Appeal No.11 OF 2004 -2-
there is sufficient reason to condone the long, inordinate and
unexplained delay. We are satisfied that the delay does not
deserve to be condoned.
3. In our anxiety to ensure that the rejection of the
prayer for condonation of delay does not result in any
failure/miscarriage of justice, we requested the learned counsel
to explain the nature of the challenge. The learned counsel for
the appellants submits that the impugned order is an ex parte
order and the decree has been granted on the basis of the
unchallenged oral evidence of PW1. The defendants including
the appellants herein had admittedly not entered appearance and
had not even filed objections. It is relevant to note that they
have not gone before the court below to get the ex parte order
set aside. In the light of absence of pleadings and challenge
against the oral evidence of PW1, there cannot be any worthwhile
challenge on merits. If the grievance of the appellants is that
they were wrongly set ex parte, they will have to explain whey
they did not approach the court below to get the ex parte order
C.M.Application No.197 OF 2004
& Mat.Appeal No.11 OF 2004 -3-
set aside. In any view of the matter, that challenge is also one to
be without any merit. We are satisfied that the petition for
condonation of delay is only to be dismissed.
4. In the result, this application for condonation of delay
is dismissed. Consequently, Mat.Appeal No.11/04 shall stand
rejected as barred by limitation.
R.BASANT, JUDGE.
M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.
dsn