IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 433 of 2010()
1. SUJEESH,AGED 22 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SAIDALAVI.S/O.HAMEED,
... Respondent
2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :19/05/2010
O R D E R
A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
C.M.Appln.No.542 OF 2010 &
M.A.C.A.No.433 OF 2010
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 19th day of May 2010
JUDGMENT
Basheer, J.
In this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the prayer is to
condone the delay of 624 days in filing the appeal.
2. Admittedly, the impugned award was passed on October 27, 2007. But
according to the petitioner/appellant, he was away from home pursuing his studies
outside Kerala for the last two years and therefore he could not contact his counsel
to give further instructions in the matter. It is further stated in the affidavit that
“after a few weeks he contacted his counsel and then only he knew that an award
had already been passed. Immediately he requested his counsel to apply for a
certified copy of the award.” According to the petitioner, the delay has occurred in
the above circumstance.
3. But a perusal of the certified copy of the award produced along with the
appeal shows that copy application for the certified copy of the award was filed on
March 18, 2008 and the copy was in fact delivered on May 31, 2008. But the
appeal is seen filed only on December 22, 2009. There is absolutely no explanation
whatsoever about the delay of more than 1= years from May 2008 till the date of
filing. We are not at all satisfied with the so called explanation.
Therefore, the petition is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also
dismissed.
A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE
jes P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE