IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1930 FAO.No. 288 of 2008() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30/09/2008 IA.412/2008 IN IA 611/2006 of SUB COURT, ATTINGAL .................... APPELLANT/ PETITIONER ----------------------------------------- REMADEVI, D/O.RAGHAVAN ASARI, VELIKKAKATHU VEEDU, NEAR BHAJANAMADAM, KEEZHATTINGAL VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------- 1. RADHIKA, W/O.JAGANNATHAN, VELIKKAKATHU VEEDU, NEAR BHAJANAMADAM, KEEZHATTINGAL VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU. 2. JAGANNATHAN, VELIKKAKATHU VEEDU, NEAR BHAJANAMADAM, KEEZHATTINGAL VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU. BY THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2008, ALONG WITH FAO NO. 289 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== FAO No.288 & 289 OF 2008 ===================== Dated this the 19th day of November 2008 JUDGMENT FAO No.288 of 2008 is preferred against the order in I.A.No.412 of 2008 in I.A.No.611 of 2006 and FAO No.289/2008 is preferred against the order in IA No.386 of 2008 in IA No.612/2006 of the Sub Court, Attingal. These applications were dismissed, which were filed for condoning the delay. There was a delay of 536 days in filing the appeal. The court below found that it is not explained to the satisfaction and it is not supported by any documentary evidence. The delay is very inordinate and unless some acceptable and credit worthy reasons are given the court cannot as a matter of course allow such applications. The petitioner did not enter the box, nor did he give any documentary evidence and in the absence of the same when the court dismisses the applications, one cannot find fault with the said court. I am conscious of the fact that the litigation should be as far as possible be decided on merits. But, when there is gross negligence and misconduct, it shall not be slightly condoned. When such an inordinate delay is caused, the party should at least produce some evidence which will FAOs 288 & 289/2008 -:2:- make the court consider the genuineness of the reasons. But unfortunately everything is absent in this case and therefore I cannot find any defect in the order passed by the court below. It is purely on the question of fact and there is no substantial question of law as well. Therefore FAOs are dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-