IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 19TH MAGHA 1929 RSA.No. 27 of 2008() -------------------- AS.231/2006 of DISTRICT COURT,KOLLAM OS.86/1996 of MUN-MAGI COURT, PARAVOOR .................... : APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF --------------------------------------------------------- RAMAN SOMARAJAN, AGED 68 YEARS, ANITHALAYAM, ERATHU CHERRY, MEENADU VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN SRI.P.RAJESH(KOTTAKKAL) SRI.N.SHANOJ RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS ----------------------------------------------- BHASURANGI, AGED 41 YEARS, CHARUVILA VEEDU, KARAMKODU, ERATHU CHERRY, MEENADU VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... R.S.A.No. 27 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2008 JUDGMENT Appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.86 of 1996 on the file of Munsiff Magistrate Court, Paravur. Respondent is the defendant. Appellant instituted the suit for declaration that sale deed 1826/1987 was executed only as security and for a mandatory injunction directing respondent to execute a release deed and for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining respondent from alienating the property. 2. Learned Munsiff, as per judgment dated 20.8.2001, dismissed the suit. Appellant did not file an appeal in time. Instead, A.S.231 of 2006 was filed, after a delay of 1825 days. He filed I.A.1232 of 2006 to condone the delay contending that he was suffering from acute arthrities and was under the treatment of Dr.Sivadas of Dhanwanthari Ayurvedic Clinic and he was completely bed-ridden from 9.7.2001 and in such circumstances, appeal could not be filed in time and the delay was not wilful and is to be condoned. Respondent resisted the petition contending that appellant was not laid up and was not under the treatment of the Doctor and there is no sufficient RSA 27/2008 2 cause to condone the delay and appellant was attending the Sub Treasury office, Chathannoor each month for collecting pension and the petition is to be dismissed. 3. Learned District Judge, on appreciation of the case put forth by appellant, in the light of Ext.A1 medical certificate produced, found that reliance cannot be placed on Ext.A1 certificate which does not show that he was bed-ridden and it was proved that appellant was attending Sub Treasury office and collecting pension and therefore he could have filed an appeal in time. It was also found that appellant was also appearing before the court in O.S.258 of 1996 during the relevant period and in such circumstances, case of appellant that he was prevented by reasonable cause is not proved and dismissed the petition. Consequently appeal was also dismissed. It is challenged in the second appeal. 4. Learned counsel appearing for appellant was heard. The argument of the learned counsel is that first appellate court should not have dismissed the application to condone the delay, especially when appellant produced Ext.A1 medical certificate and in the interest of justice, petition should have been allowed on terms and a decision should have been taken on merits in the first appeal. RSA 27/2008 3 5. On hearing the learned counsel, I do not find any substantial question of law involved in the appeal. The delay in filing the first appeal was 1825 days. What was contended by appellant was that he was completely bed-ridden and was under the treatment of Dr.Sivadasan and therefore he could not file an appeal in time. Ext.A1 certificate was issued on 15.8.2006. As rightly found by courts below, it is in evidence that appellant was contesting O.S.258 of 1996 during the relevant period and was also receiving pension regularly from the Sub Treasury office. If so the alleged illness was not a cause for not filing an appeal in time. Moreover Ext.A1 does not show that appellant was laid up or was advised to take bed-rest. The certificate issued in August 2006 only shows that he was being treated by the doctor from July 2001. There is no material to show that appellant was prevented from filing an appeal because of his illness. In such circumstances, first appellate court was justified in refusing to condone the inordinate delay of 1825 days. As there is no substantial question of law involved in the appeal, it is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-