IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2008 / 10TH ASHADHA 1930 RSA.No.363 of 2008 (B) ---------------------------- AS.135/2004 of PRL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE OS.734/2001 of ADDL.M.C-I,KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF ------------------------------------------- P.T.VIJAYAKRISHNAN, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.P.T.SREEDHARAN, 'SEAGULL', MANGOTTU VAYAL, KOTTOOLI AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.M.G.ASHOKAN SRI.K.SANEESH KUMAR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS ------------------------------------------------------ 1. MANAGER (L & H.P.F.), L.I.C. OF INDIA, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, JEEVAN PRAKASH, KOZHIKODE-1, NAGARAM AMSOM DESOM. 2. BRANCH MANAGER, L.I.C. OF INDIA, BRANCH NO.III, KOZHIKODE-1, NAGARAM AMSOM AND DESOM. 3. L.I.C. OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, YOGAKSHEMA, L.I.C. OF INDIA, MUMBAI-22. BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ C. M. Application No.297 of 2008 & R. S. A. No.363 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT This is an application filed by the appellant seeking for condonation of delay of 151 days in filing the R.S.A. 2. The judgment assailed is pronounced on 26/07/07, but copy of the judgment was applied for only as late as on 21/11/07 almost after four months. Stamp papers called for on 30/11/07 were produced only on 04/12/07 and copy was taken delivery of on 13/12/07, but this appeal is filed only as late as on 07/04/08. 3. The reason assigned by the appellant for the delay is that he entrusted the clerk of his counsel to apply for copy, but he applied for copy only on 21/11/07 and further that even though copy was seen received by him on 13/12/07 the appellant was not informed R. S. A. No.363 of 2008 -2- about the receipt of the same though he has stated that he will inform the appellant as and when it is ready and therefore, he received the copy only on 03/04/08 when he personally contacted the clerk and that resulted in delay of 151 days being caused in filing the appeal. 4. The fact remains that the lower appellate court dismissed the appeal on 26/07/07 and this R.S.A is filed only on 07/04/08. Even on the averments in the affidavit of the appellant he contacted the office of his counsel in the court below ever after dismissal of the appeal only on 03/04/08 after about nine and a half months of the judgment under appeal. This shows the culpable neglect on his part to have the appeal properly prosecuted. He is accusing the clerk of his lawyer in the court below behind his back and no affidavit is caused to be filed either by the clerk or the lawyer who was R. S. A. No.363 of 2008 -3- appearing for the petitioner/appellant in the court below. It is too much for the appellant to think that by dumping the burden on others he can hope to get the delay of as much as 151 days in filing the appeal condoned. The bald statement accusing the clerk of the lawyer who was appearing in the court below is only a ruse to get the delay condoned. I am not convinced that just and sufficient cause exists to condone the delay on such bald statements made by the appellant so as to upset the rights that have accrued to the successful party by non-filing of the appeal in time. Hence, refusing to condone the delay of as much as 151 days in filing the R.S.A, I dismiss this C.M. Application. Consequently, the R.S.A also stands dismissed. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-