IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2008 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1930 SA.No. 534 of 1999(E) ----------------------------------- AS.4/1998 of I ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, TRIVANDRUM OS.253/1999 of SUB COURT,NEYYATTINKARA .................... APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS: 1. BHANUMATHI PILLAI SAUDAMMA, AGED 40, KALAMPATTUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, PALLICHAL DESOM, NOW RESIDING AT THITTAMATHU VEEDU, KALADY, KARAMANA, TRIVANDRUM. 2. KRISHNANKUTTY JAYAKUMAR, AGED 34, DO. DO. 3. K.RAJENDRAN NAIR, AGED 30, DO. DO. 4. SAROJINI AMMA, AGED 29, DO. DO. 5. K.ANIL KUMAR, AGED 28, DO. DO. 6. THANKAMMA MOLLEY @ BHAVATHARANY, AGED 36, DO. DO. 7. THANKAMMA MAHESWARI, AGED 34, DO. DO. 8. THANKAMMA PREMA, AGED 32, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.P.S.RAMESH KUMAR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: 1. GOURI PILLAI BHANUMATHI PILLAI, AGED 83, KALAMPATTUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, PALLICHAL DESOM, NOW RESIDING AT VALIYAVEEDU, KALADY, KARAMANA, TRIVANDRUM. 2. BHANUMATHI PILLAI THANKAMMA PILLAI, AGED 64, DO. DO. 3. BHANUMATHI PILLAI SAROJINI AMMA, AGED 61, DO. DO. 4. BHANUMATHI PILLAI LALITHAMMA, AGED 50, DO. DO. (DIED. LRs IMPLEADED) 5. ACHUTHAN PILLAI SREEKANTAN NAIR, AGED 47, DO. DO. 6. BHAGAVATHY SANTHAMMA, MELETHENGUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, EDAKODE DESOM, PALLICHAL PAKUTTY, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK. 7. VELAYUDHAN NADAR RAJENDRAN, RESIDING AT DO. DO. 8. SANTHAMMA USHA KUMARI, RESIDING AT DO. DO. ADDL. RESPONDENTS 9. V.RAVEENDRAN NAIR, AGED 50, KAVARUVILAKATHU VEEDU, KALADY, KARAMANA P.O., TRIVANDRUM. 10. R.VISHNU, AGED 14 (MINOR), S/O RAVEENDRAN NAIR, DO. DO. 11. R.SHAMBU, AGED 12 (MINOR), DO. DO. Impleaded as per order dt. 9.8.04 in CMP 1488/01 BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP FOR R6 TO R8 SRI.V.BIJU JOSEPH FOR R1 TO R4 THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. --------------------------- C.M.P.No. 1423 of 1999 & S.A.No. 534 of 1999 --------------------------- JUDGMENT This is an application for condonation of delay of 262 days in filing the appeal. An affidavit has been filed by the Advocate's Clerk as also by the first appellant in support of the application for condonation of delay. A.S.No.4/98 of the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram, the decree and judgment which is assailed in this second appeal, was disposed of on 17.1.1998. According to the Clerk, he applied for copy of the judgment and decree and the copy so received was misplaced by him and only when the second appellant approached him on 15.12.1998 that he took notice of the fact that the authenticated copy of the judgment and decree received were missing and he could not locate the same. According to him, he immediately applied for another copy on 16.12.1998 and that copy was received on 19.6.1999 and it is on the basis of that, that this appeal is filed. The affidavit of the Clerk is supported by the affidavit of the first appellant. It SA 534/99 2 is stated that on receipt of copy, the appellants were on tour to important temples and affidavit is filed by the first appellant. 2. There is absolutely no evidence that copy application was made earlier and copy was accordingly obtained and that was misplaced. The details of the copy application made in the first instance, if any, should have been disclosed and there is no whisper regarding the same in the affidavit filed by the Advocate's Clerk. In the circumstances, there is absolutely no bona fides in the reasons stated for condonation of delay. On the mere asking for condonation of delay of as much as 262 days without any just and sufficient cause the delay cannot be condoned. In the result, refusing to condone the delay of 262 days in filing the appeal, I dismiss this application. Consequently, the second appeal also stands dismissed. 26th May, 2008 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv