IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2008 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1930 RSA.No. 219 of 2008 --------------------------------- AS.541/2005 of I ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM OS.1861/2000 of III ADDL.M.C.EKM (RENT CONTROL) .................... APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS: 1. ANNAKUTTY @ ANNA, W/O. OUSEPH, AGED 77, SRAMBIKKAPARAMBIL, SOUTH JANATHA ROAD, PALARIVATTOM DESOM, POONITHURA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. 2. MARY, D/O. ANNAMKUTTY, AGED 52, DO. DO. 3. V.O.BABY VELUTHENA, AGED 55, DO. DO., 4. GRACY, D/O. ANNAMKUTTY, AGED 48, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.T.I.DANIEL RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF: K.T.JOSEPH, S/O. THOMAS, AGED 74, RESIDING AT KAPPATTIL HOUSE, SOUTH JANATHA ROAD, PALARIVATTOM DESOM, KANAYANNUR TALUK. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. --------------------------- C.M.Appl.No.181 of 2008 & R.S.A.No. 219 of 2008 --------------------------- JUDGMENT This is an application for condonation of delay of 127 days in filing the Regular Second Appeal. The application is supported by an affidavit filed by the second appellant. The reason for the delay stated by her is that the case file was missing from her counsel's office for quite sometime and that on enquiry, it is learnt that after obtaining copy of the judgment of the lower appellant court, the file was misplaced among the disposed of files by the newly appointed Clerk of her counsel and it was later traced out from there and that due to the misplacement of the file, there is a delay of 127 days in filing the appeal. 2. There is no mention as to the Lawyer in whose office, the file happened to be missing. It is also not stated as to from which date to which date was the file missing, except that it was RSA 219/08 2 missing for quite sometime. The further allegation is that the file was misplaced by a newly appointed Clerk of her counsel among the disposed of files. Who that newly appointed Clerk is is not disclosed. There is no affidavit either by the Clerk or by the Lawyer in support of the averments so made by the petitioner. By making such allegations in a vague manner, the petitioner/appellant cannot hope to have delay of as much as 127 days being condoned and to have the appeal accepted on file, especially when consequent on such delay, valid rights have accrued to the respondent. There is absolutely no reason to condone the delay on the averments made by the petitioner on hearsay. This application is, hence, devoid of merit and is dismissed. Consequently, the Regular Second Appeal also stands dismissed. 26th May, 2008 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv