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. 425 of 2008 --------------------------------- AS.170/2003 of DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA OS.467/1999 of MUNSIFF COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS: 1. JOHN MATHAI, S/O.LATE MATHAI, KUNDOOR, VALLIKODU KOTTAYAM MURI, VALLIKODU KOTTAYAM VILLAGE, VAKAYAR, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. ALEYAMMA JOHN, W/O.LATE JOHN MATHEW, KUNDOOR, VALLIKODU KOTTAYAM MURI, KOTTAYAM-KOTTAYAM VILLAGE, VAKAYAR, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.M.NARENDRA KUMAR SRI.SHAIJU ANTONY RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: 1. BHASKARAN, PUTHENVEETTIL THAZHAYIL, VALLIKODU KOTTAYAM MURI, VALLIKODU KOTTAYAM VILLAGE, VAKAYAR, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. MRINAL SEN, S/O.BHASKARAN, DO. DO. 3. HAMEED RAWTHER, KOCHUVEETTIL, DO. DO. 4. ABDUL KARIM, S/O.HAMEED RAWTHER, DO. DO. 5. PURUSHOTHAMAN, LAL SADANAM HOUSE, VALLIKODU KOTTAYAM MURI, VALLIKODU KOTTAYAM VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 6. SALIM, KOCHUVEETTIL, VALLIKODU KOTTAYAM MURI, VALLIKODU KOTTAYAM VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 7. RAJAN, KOCHUVEETTIL, DO. DO. 8. HUSSAIN, KOCHUVEETTIL, DO. DO. 9. THANKAPPAN, KOCHUVEETTIL, DO. DO. 10. AKBAR, KOCHUVEETTIL, DO. DO. 11. RUBY, KOCHUVEETTIL, DO. DO. 12. SHAJI, KOCHUVEETTIL, DO. DO. 13. SALI, KOCHUVEETTIL, DO. DO. 14. SUJATHA, KOCHUVEETTIL, DO. DO. 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.352 of 2008 & R.S.A.No.425 of 2008 --------------------------- JUDGMENT This is an application for condonation of delay of as much as 548 days in filing the appeal. In the affidavit filed by the second petitioner/second appellant, in support of the application for condonation of delay, it is averred that the second appeal ought to have been filed on 9.10.2006, but is filed only on 9.4.2008; that her counsel informed her by letter dated 13.9.2006 to make available certain records in the case so as to enable him to prepare the second appeal; that though the records were not made available, the second appeal was drafted in November, a copy of which was also sent to her; that in the meanwhile, in November 2006, the counsel shifted his office from Karimpatta Road to Tatapuram and the entire case records, while on transmission, were misplaced and the appeal was not filed in time and that only RSA 425/08 2 in the first week of April 2008, on her enquiries, it was realised that the appeal was not filed and it is thereafter that the files were traced out and the appeal is filed. 2. There is no mention in the affidavit as to which of her Lawyer has shifted his office from Karimpatta Road to Tatapuram and the date on which the office was shifted. There is no affidavit by the counsel concerned, swearing to those aspects. It is seen that only on her enquiry with the office of the counsel it was understood that the case records were misplaced and it is only thereafter that the files were traced out and the appeal was filed on 9.4.2008. The letter dated 13.9.2006 alleged to have been sent to the appellant by her Lawyer is not produced, so that what are the records the counsel wanted cannot be understood from the averments. 3. It is worthy to note that the case file was traced out on 9.4.2008, on the averments in the RSA 425/08 3 affidavit, when she made enquiries in the first week of April. This means that from September 2006 till April 2008, she did not make any enquiries with respect to her case. Had enquiries been made, the counsel would have traced out the case records and filed the appeal. The delay caused in filing the appeal is as much as 548 days. Valuable rights had accrued to the respondents in the meanwhile. Without any valid, just and sufficient cause, for reason of irresponsible manner in which the case was being dealt with by the party and her counsel, the delay of as much as 548 days cannot be condoned to the detriment of the respondents. In the result, I dismiss this C. M. application. Consequently, the Regular Second Appeal also stands dismissed. 27th May, 2008 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv