IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2008 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1930 RSA.No.661 of 2005 (D) ---------------------------- AS.1/1993 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), MANJERI OS.7/1991 of MUNSIFF COURT, TIRUR .................... APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS 1 AND 2/PLAINTIFFS 1 ANSD 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- BALAN, S/O.ARAMUGHAN, PADINHARE PURAKKAL PACHATTIRI AMSOM, PARAVANNA DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI (SR.) RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 2 TO 7/DEFENDANTS 2 TO 7 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. KUMARAN, S/O.AYYAPPAN @ APPU, PADINHARE PURAKKAL, PACHATTIRI AMSOM, PARAVANNA DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. RAMAN, S/O. DO. 3. SUBRAMANIAN, S/O. DO. 4. SAROJINI, D/O. DO. 5. CHANDRAN, S/O.ARUMUGHAN, DO. DO. 6. GOVINDAN, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.C.MURALIKRISHNAN (PAYYANUR) FOR R1, 3 & 4 THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ C. M. Application No.429 of 2005 & R. S. A. No.661 of 2005 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is posted at Bench today as steps are not taken for notice being issued to respondents 2, 5 and 6 on C.M. Application No.429/05 seeking condonation of delay of as much as 294 days in filing the appeal. The judgment under appeal was passed on 10/04/03 and this appeal is filed after more than two years on 16/05/05. Application for copy of judgment is seen filed on 22/04/03 and the date notified to receive copy was 06/05/04. According to the appellant/petitioner, the appeal should have been filed on or before 24/07/04, but could be filed only on 16/05/05. For the delay of 294 days in filing the appeal, the reason stated by the appellant in the affidavit filed by him in support of C.M. R. S. A. No.661 of 2005 -2- Application No.429/05 is that soon after receipt of copy of judgment appealed against, the clerk attached to the office of the lawyer sent letter intimating that copy has been received, but the letter was not received by him and he was under the impression that he will be intimated on receipt of copy and that he went over to the office of the lawyer and made enquiries on 16/04/05 as he did not get any intimation and only then could he know that copy was received long back and a letter was sent to him. It is his further case that as the courts were closed for summer holidays the appeal was filed only on the reopening of courts. In short, the appellant is attributing reasons for delay to non-receipt of letter issued by the lawyer's clerk to him. The said averment is not supported by the lawyer's clerk and the affidavit is filed by the appellant behind the back of his lawyer's R. S. A. No.661 of 2005 -3- clerk. Assigning some reason or the other is no ground to have delay of 294 days condoned and to have the appeal received on file. There is no meaning in retaining the C.M. Application on file after three years of its filing especially when no steps are taken to complete service on the delay condonation application. The request made by the counsel for more time to complete service of notice on the delay condonation application does not deserve any consideration in the circumstances in which the delay of 294 days has been caused in filing the appeal and there is no just and sufficient cause to condone the said delay. In the result, I dismiss this C.M. Application. Consequently, the R.S.A also stands dismissed. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-