IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2009 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1931 Mat.Appeal.No. 11 of 2004() --------------------------- OP.384/1998 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS 2 AND 3 ----------------------------------------------------- 1. NARAYANAN, MANAVALENCHERRY HOUSE, KUNNAPPALLY KARA, PANCHIKKADU VILLAGE. 2. RADHAMONY W/O. NARAYANAN, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND FIRST COUNTER PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------------ 1. BEENAMOL K.V. D/O. VELAYUDHAN, KUNNUMPURATHU HOUSE, MANAPPALLY KARA, NATTAKOM VILLAGE. 2. MOHANDAS M.N., S/O. NARAYANAN, MANAVALANCHERRY HOUSE, KUNNAPPALLY KARA, PANCHIKKADU VILLAGE. ADV. SRI.DILIP MOHAN FOR R2 THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: 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