IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2008 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1930 RSA.No. 37 of 2008 ------------------------------- AS.210/2005 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA OS.36/2002 of SUB COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT: C.G.SIVANKUTTY, S/O. GOPALAN, CHETTUMADATHIL, THUKALASSERY, THIRUVALLA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF: C.M.VARGHESE, CHANDRAVIRUTHIL, KALIPSO, PALIYAKKARA MURI, THIRUVALLA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJEEV.K.KURUP THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. --------------------------- R.S.A.No. 37 of 2008 --------------------------- JUDGMENT The defendant in O.S.No.36/02 on the file of the Sub Court, Thiruvalla, who has lost his contentions concurrently both before the trial court as well as before the first appellate court, is the appellant. 2. The suit was one for realisation of money. The facts of the case do not require to be detailed, as this Court is not called upon to decide the merits of the findings in the suit. Suffice to say that the suit was contested and the trial court, after raising necessary issues for trial, conducted a trial of the suit and considering the evidence adduced at trial, which consisted of oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and DW1 and documentary evidence Exhibits A1 to A3 and A4 series as also Exhibit B1, decreed the suit with costs. Against the said decree, the present appellant, who was the defendant in the suit, filed RSA 37/08 2 appeal before the District Court, Pathanamthitta, but, that had been filed with a delay condonation application, as the appeal was not within time. The first appellate court dismissed I.A.No.72/05, which was the application to condone delay and consequently, the appeal filed as A.S.No.210/05 by the appellant was also dismissed. This Regular Second Appeal is filed assailing the said dismissal. 3. What has been produced before this Court is only the judgment of the first appellate court in A.S.No.210/05, which reads as follows: “Heard.I.A.72/05 to condone delay dismissed. Hence appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. No cost.” The order whereby I.A.No.72/05 was dismissed is not produced. Consequently, this Court is unable to understand as to how much was the delay, what was the reason assigned to have the delay condoned and RSA 37/08 3 what were the reasons, which weighed with the court, to disallow condonation of delay prayed for. This appeal filed by the appellant as an indigent person was coming up for admission today, though it was filed as early as on 5.6.2006. Still, the appellant did not think it necessary or proper to produce the order on I.A.No.72/05 to enable this Court to consider the correctness of the order of the court below refusing to condone the delay in filing A.S.No.210/05. Further, no substantial question of law arises also for consideration by this Court in this Regular Second Appeal. For all the above reasons, refusing admission, I dismiss this Regular Second Appeal in limine. 3rd June, 2008 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv