IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2008 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1930 RSA.No.335 of 2008 ( ) --------------------------- AS.96/2005 of SUB COURT, PAYYANNUR OS.302/1997 of MUNSIFF COURT, THALIPARAMBA .................... APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS ------------------------------------------------ 1. PERIYAT YESODHA, W/O.LATE BALAKRISHNAN, VELLORA AMSOM DESOM, P.O.KAKKARA, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. SULOCHANA, D/O.LATE BALAKRISHNAN, VELLORA AMSOM DESOM, P.O.KAKKARA, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. VASANTHI, D/O.LATE BALAKRISHNAN, VELLORA AMSOM DESOM, P.O.KAKKARA. 4. SINDHU, D/O.LATE BALAKRISHNAN, VELLORA AMSOM DESOM, P.O.KAKKARA, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.MURALIKRISHNAN (PAYYANUR) RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS ---------------------------------------------------- 1. KAYIPRAVAN KIZHAKKINIYIL RAGHAVAN, S/O.LATE KELA PODUVAL, VAYAKKARA AMSOM DESOM, PONNAMVAYAL KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. MEENAKSHI, D/O.LATE KELA PODUVAL, VAYAKKARA AMSOM DESOM, PONNAMVAYAL, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. THANKAMANI, D/O.LATE KELA PODUVAL, VAYAKKARA AMSOM DESOM, PONNAMVAYAL, KANNUR DISTRICT. \ RSA.No.335 of 2008 -2- 4. OMANA, D/O.LATE KELA PODUVAL, VAYAKKARA AMSOM DESOM, PONNAMVAYAL, KANNUR DISTRICT. 5. RUGMINI, D/O.LATE KELA PODUVAL, VAYAKKARA AMSOM DESOM, PONNAMVAYAL KANNUR DISTRICT. 6. USHAMANI, D/O.LATE KELA PODUVAL, VAYAKKARA AMSOM DESOM, PONNAMVAYAL, KANNUR DISTRICT. 7. CHEMMANCHERI LAKSHMI, W/O.LATE GOPALAN, VAYAKKARA AMSOM DESOM, PONNAMVAYAL, KANNUR DISTRICT. 8. SARADHA, D/O.LATE GOPALAN, VAYAKKARA AMSOM DESOM, PONNAMVAYAL, KANNUR DISTRICT. 9. RAJESH, S/O.LATE GOPALAN, VAYAKKARA AMSOM DESOM, PONNAMVAYAL, KANNUR DISTRICT. 10. K.K.RAJESH, S/O.LATE YESODA, ERAMAM AMSOM DESOM, P.O. ERAMAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. 11. K.K.RATHEESH, LATE YESODA, ERAMAM AMSOM DESOM, P.O.ERAMAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ R. S. A. No.335 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT This R.S.A is posted to this day for admission hearing as a last chance as on 26/05/08 when the matter came up for consideration also counsel for the appellants was absent and on that day time was prayed for on his behalf. All the same, today counsel for the appellants is absent and there is not even representation on his behalf. The judgment of the first appellate court in A.S.96/05 is what is assailed in this Regular Second Appeal. The judgment of the first appellate court reads as follows:- “Application (I.A.1092/05) for condoning the delay of 442 days in filing this appeal is dismissed. Hence the appeal is not admitted holding that it is barred by limitation and same is rejected.” R. S. A. No.335 of 2008 -2- 2. The order on I.A.1092/05 is also produced. It is seen that the reasons stated for condonation of delay by the appellant was that she was laid up with hypertension and uterus bleeding and therefore, she could not file the appeal in time. There are altogether four appellants in A.S.96/05. Any one of the appellants could do the needful for filing the appeal in time. The respondent was vehemently opposing the delay condonation application. The appellant has tendered evidence as PW1 and got marked Exts.A1 to A8. The court below has observed that Ext.A1 medical certificate showed that one of the appellants therein (name not seen mentioned) was advised to take rest from 18/09/04 to 04/10/04 as she was suffering from hypertension and that Ext.A2 showed that she was admitted in hospital on 06/05/05 to 08/05/05 in connection with uterus R. S. A. No.335 of 2008 -3- bleeding. Exts.A3 to A5 scan reports also showed that she had uterus bleeding. Those certificates were quite insufficient to substantiate the case of the appellants that delay of 442 days occurred for reason of the illness. It was in the above circumstances that the court below dismissed the application for condonation of delay apart from the fact that the certificate did cover only about 17 to 18 days and the delay was of 442 days in filing the appeal. The fact also remains that illness of one of the appellants is not sufficient to condone the delay when there are altogether four appellants in the appeal. The first appellate court rightly did not find any just and sufficient cause to condone the delay and it was consequent on dismissal of the delay condonation petition that the appeal was also dismissed as barred by limitation. I R. S. A. No.335 of 2008 -4- cannot but confirm the said finding. There is absolutely no substantial question of law for consideration in this appeal. This R.S.A is hence, dismissed in limine refusing admission. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-