IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2008 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1930 RSA.No. 5 of 2008 ----------------------------- AS.6/2002 of SUB COURT, KASARAGOD OS.348/2000 of ADDL.MUNSIFF, KASARAGOD .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHUDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, DARAKA NAGAR, KASARGODE. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, DWARAKA NAGAR, KASARGODE. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF: M/S.LORDS POLYTECHS PVT. LTD., A COMPANY REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MOHAMMED ANWAR. BY ADV. SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD SMT.O.K.SANTHA THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. --------------------------- C.M.Appl.No.4 of 2008 & R.S.A.No.5 of 2008 --------------------------- JUDGMENT Service is complete and respondent had entered appearance and filed counter. 2. Petitioners/appellants seek to get delay of 751 days in filing the appeal condoned. The judgment assailed is dated 31.8.2005. Copy application was made as late as on 18.6.2007, almost after two years. In the affidavit filed by the Assistant Executive Engineer in the office of the Standing Counsel for the petitioners, the averments are that on account of the omission of the Clerk of the Standing Counsel in the court below, copy application could be made only on 18.6.2007; that the certified copy of the judgment and decree was ready on 28.6.2007 and the date fixed to receive the copy was 30.6.2007, but the certified copy of the judgment and decree was taken delivery of by the Standing Counsel in the court RSA 5/08 2 below only on 2.7.2007; that the Secretary of the Kerala State Electricity Board had accorded sanction to file appeal on 13.12.2005 itself, after five months, but, however, the certified copy and the back records were made available to the senior Standing Counsel before the High Court only on 19.6.2007 and then the above appeal is prepared and is being filed and that there is no wilful laches on the part of anyone else in not filing the appeal within time and therefore, the delay of 751 days in filing the appeal be condoned. Counsel for the petitioners submit that in the last sentence in paragraph 3 of the affidavit, the date on which the certified copy of the judgment and the records were made available to the senior Standing Counsel is actually 16.9.2007, though it is typed as 19.6.2007. This means that 2½ months' time had elapsed in between receipt of copy of judgment and filing of the appeal, in a case, where, inordinate delay had occasioned even earlier. RSA 5/08 3 3. The entire fault is attempted to be dumped on the standing counsel in the court below and that too behind his back. No affidavit of the standing counsel, who was appearing in the court below, is filed in support of this application for condonation of delay. There is absolutely no reason why the delay of as many as 751 days is to be condoned and this appeal is to be taken to file. In the absence of just and sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay of as much as 751 days in filing the appeal, I refuse to condone the delay and dismiss the C.M. Application. Consequently, the Regular Second Appeal also stands dismissed. 27th May, 2008 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv