IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2008 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1930 RSA.No. 807 of 2005 ----------------------- AS.60/2004 of I ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD OS.451/2002 of MUNSIFF COURT, CHITTUR .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT -------------------------------------------- PARAMESWARAN, S/O.NARAYANASWAMY CHETTIAR, AGED 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT 3/80, DEVANGAPURAM, CHITTUR VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.C.JAYACHANDRAN SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY RESPONDENTS: APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF ------------------------------------------- GOVINDASWAMY, S/O.RANGASWAMY, AGED 54, RESIDING AT 3/79, DEVANGAPURAM, CHITTUR VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN FOR R1 SRI.A.SREERAMAKRISHNAN FOR R1 THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. BALACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------- C.M. Application No 525 of 2005 and R.S.A. No 807 of 2005 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th June 2008 JUDGMENT This is an application to condone the delay of 78 days in filing the appeal. Judgment under appeal was pronounced on 29.11.2004 and copy was applied for on 30.11.2004 and copy was taken delivery of on 18.01.2005 though the date fixed to receive the copy was on 13.01.2005. Still the appeal was filed only on 01.07.2005. In the affidavit filed by the appellant in support of the application for condonation of delay it is averred that the appeal ought to have been filed on or before 13.04.2005 but could be filed only on 01.07.2005 with a delay of 78 days in filing the same. 2. According to the appellant, he was not aware of the receipt of the copy of the judgment and decree as he was in Bombay for business purpose and after he came back to his native place and enquired with his counsel he came to know that copy of the judgment and decree has already been received. Immediately he took copy of the judgment and decree to the counsel at Ernakulam and the counsel took some time to prepare the second appeal and that is how the delay of 78 days RSA 807/05 2 occurred in filing the appeal. There is no mention in the affidavit as to from which date he was at Bombay and as to whether his absence from station was continuous or during intermittent periods only. Appellant proceeding for his business purpose is no reason for this court to condone the delay in filing the appeal as it is not a circumstance which enables the period to be excluded from being taken into consideration for calculating the period of limitation. The reason stated by the appellant is not just and convincing to have the delay condoned and the rights of successful party cannot be interfered with condoning such delay without just and sufficient cause. In the above view, refusing to condone the delay I dismiss the C.M. Application. Consequently R.S.A also stands dismissed. Sd/- K.P. BALACHANDRAN Judge 11/06/2008 en [true copy]