IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2009 / 20TH ASWINA 1931 Arb.Appeal .No. 22 of 2008 ---------------------- ( OP.71/1995 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,KOLLAM) APPELLANTS/ RESPONDENTS ------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, KALLADA IRRIGATION PROJECT, RIGHT BANK CIRCLE, KOLLAM. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV.. SHRI R. LAKSHMI NARAYAN. RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ---------------------------- 1. K. SREEDHARA KURUP, GOVT. CONTRACTOR, RAJI BHAVAN, EDAVATTOM, KARUVELIL P.O., EZHUKONE, KOLLAM. (*DIED) ADDL. RESPONDENTS: 2. A.S. MANIYAMMA (WIFE), RAJ BHAVAN, EDAVATTOM, KARUVELIL P.O., PAVITHRESWARAM VILLAGE- PIN 691 505. 3. REJITHLAL (S0N), RAJ BHAVAN, EDAVATTOM, KARUVELIL P.O., PAVITHRESWARAM VILLAGE, PIN - 691505. 4. REJITHA (DAUGHTER) RESIDING AT NANDANAM VEEDU, PUTHOOR VILLAGE. 5. REEJA S., (DAUGHTER) RESIDING AT MEGHAM, ULIYAKOVILIL, KOLLAM (*ADDL. RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5 ARE IMPLEADED AS THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED SOLE RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 23.05.2009 IN I.A.NO. 3402 OF 2008) R2 TO R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR THIS ARBITRATION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. ............................................................................... ARBITRATION APPEAL No. 22 OF 2008 & C.M. APPLICATION No. 1576 OF 2008 ......................................................................... Dated this the 12 th October, 2009 J U D G M E N T P.R. Raman, J: C.M. APPLICATION No. 1576 of 2008: This is an application for condonation of delay of 1351 days in filing the appeal. The affidavit, in support of the application is filed by the Assistant Executive Engineer (in charge of Executive Engineer), KIP LB. Dvn. No.5, Kollam. 2. It is averred in the affidavit that the judgment and decree in O.P.(Arb.)No.71 of 1995 of the Principal Sub Court, Kollam was pronounced on 22.07.2004, but the application for certified copy was filed only on 16.05.2008, nearly after four years. It was thereafter that the copy was received on 04.06.2008. It is stated in the affidavit that the District ARBITRATION APPEAL No. 22 OF 2008 2 Government Pleader did not intimate the matter to the appellant in time, hence there occurred delay in applying for the certified copy. If this plea is accepted as a sufficient ground, then in every case, where there is delay in submitting the application, the Court will be bound to accept such reasons as sufficient reasons for condonation of delay. May be for some or other reasons the learned Counsel could not have intimated the client immediately after pronouncement of the judgment and in such circumstances, there may be some delay. Such cases are distinguishable and some consideration could have been given taking a liberal view, to condone the delay. But in this case no such explanation is offered. Further, why intimation to the client is required for applying certified copy of the judgment/order, since there is already a vakalath in favour of the learned Counsel, which authorises him to apply for certified copy of the judgment/order. 3. Therefore, non submission of the application for certified copy of the judgment on the ground of want of information from the client, is not a valid or sufficient reason to ARBITRATION APPEAL No. 22 OF 2008 3 condone the delay. It is also averred in the affidavit that subsequently some changes occurred in the office of the District Government Pleader. After receipt of certified copy of the judgment there is some delay, for which, it is explained that they were waiting for the opinion from the Government for examining the scope for filing the appeal. Even though the delay, occurred after receipt of the certified copy of the judgment, is explained properly, we find that the reasons stated for the delay in applying for the certified copy is not at all satisfactory to convince this Court that the delay was due to unavoidable circumstances beyond control. Therefore, there is laches on the part of the appellant in not preferring the appeal in time. 4. The learned Counsel for the respondent seriously opposed the application for condonation of delay. It is submitted by the learned Counsel that the judgment was delivered as early as in 1995 and that no steps were taken by the Government for setting aside the award by filing any application as contemplated under the Arbitration Act. ARBITRATION APPEAL No. 22 OF 2008 4 5. In the facts and circumstances, we do not find any merit in the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. ARBITRATION APPEAL No. 22 of 2008: In view of dismissal of the application for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal, the Appeal is also dismissed. P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk