IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Ex.FA.No. 54 of 2009(D)
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Petitioner
2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LA (NH),
Vs
1. RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI,
... Respondent
2. G.SREEDEVI AMMA,
3. S.KRISHNAMMA, D/O.RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI,
4. P.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI,
5. R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI,
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent :SRI.JOHN K.GEORGE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :13/10/2009
O R D E R
P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
C.M. APPLN. 686/2009 I EX.F.A. NO. 54/2009
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
DATED THIS, THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2009.
O R D E R
Raman, J.
This is an application for condonation of delay of 742 days caused in
filing the appeal. The application is supported by an affidavit sworn into by
the Senior Superintendent, Suit Section, Collectorate, Thiruvananthapuram.
The impugned order in E.P. 7/2003 in L.A.R. 61/87 on the file of the
Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram was passed on 24.11.2006. It
is stated that the Additional Government Pleader did not intimate the order
within time and since the file was misplaced in his office and due to
subsequent change of Government Pleaders, the applicant could apply for
certified copy only on 23.5.2008. Certified copy was obtained on 7.6.2008
and thereafter it was forwarded to the Advocate General’s Office and finally
the matter was returned to the concerned Government Pleader on 9.7.2008.
due to pressure of work, the Government Pleader returned the file without
taking any steps and then the file was placed before the present Government
Pleader. Because of the workload, he could file the Ex.F.A. only on
C.M. APPLN. IN EX.F.A. 54/2009 :2:
5.3.2009. This is the manner in which the delay is explained.
2. Even in making a copy application nearly two years’ time is
taken and the explanation is that file was misplaced. There is no statement
as to when the file was found out later. It is stated that there was change in
the Government Pleader but no date is mentioned in the affidavit as to when
was the change, who was the then Government Pleader and who was the
new Government Pleader, in case the application was filed through him.
even thereafter, there was delay. After the order was forwarded to the
Advocate General’s Office it is stated that the file was returned by the
Government Pleader on 9.7.2008 and due to pressure of work no steps were
taken. Thus, as a whole, the delay is not properly explained.
In the circumstances, we cannot act upon this affidavit. Government
Pleader, however, seeks time for filing a better affidavit.
Two weeks time granted.
P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE.
P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE.
KNC/-