IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2009 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1931 RSA.No. 167 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24/07/2008 IN IA 1722/2006 IN AS.208/2006 of DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY OS.525/2002 of PRL.M.C.,KANNUR .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF ----------------------------- V.K. LALITHA DEVI, W/O. EASANAN, AGED 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT MADHUSREE, KALARIVATHUKKAL, VALAPPATTANAM AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR DT. BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. K. MALLIKA, HEADMISTRESS, RAMAGURU UP SCHOOL, PUZHATHI, P.O. CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR DT. 2. THE SUB TREASURY OFFICER, SUB TREASURY, KANNUR. 3. THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER (PF), THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, (PF BRANCH), TRIVANDRUM. 4. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. 5. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, TRIVANDRUM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.L.G.SURESH BABU SRI.C.KRISHNAN(KANNUR) FOR R1 SMT.K.K.CHANDRALEKHA FOR R1 THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ---------------------------------------- R.S.A.No. 167 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT The plaintiff in O.S. 525/2002 on the file of the Munsiff Court Kannur, who was the appellant in A.S. No. 308 of 2006 on the file of the District Court, Thalassery is the appellant herein. The parties hereinafter referred to as plaintiff and defendants as arrayed in the Suit. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money under two heads. One is that the Provident Fund amount disbursed to her after a period of 7 months, hence the payment was belated. Secondly that an amount of Rs.2,855/- which is due to her from the 1st defendant towards special fee account is also not settled. The plaintiff also claimed interest for the delayed payment of provident fund amount at the rate of 12% per annum for the period from 1.3.2001 to 15.10.2001. The total claim was Rs. 23,440/-. 2. The trial court considered both claims after considering all the contentions raised by both sides. The trial court held that from the records produced by the defendants it is seen that they have duly prepared the bill and presented it before the treasury and the bill was objected due to the ban imposed by the Government and there was no laches on the part of the drawing and disbursing Officer. The trial court also observed that there was absolutely nothing on record to substantiate her allegations in the plaint and that the conduct of the plaintiff in not entering into the witness box to adduce oral evidence with respect to her case itself shows that she was not having a good case for prosecution. Finally the trial court R.S.A. No. 167 of 2009 -2- held that the plaintiff was not entitled to get interest for the delayed payment of the provident fund from the defendants and there was no evidence to prove the claim of special fee account. 3. The plaintiff preferred appeal before the lower appellate court with a petition for condoning of delay of 534 days . The only reason for the delay stated by the plaintiff is the non-receipt of communication from the office of her advocate. From the address of the plaintiff it is seen that she is a resident of Valapattanam which is a nearby place where the lawyer's office is located. It seems that plaintiff is not taken any initiative in effectively prosecuting the case . The very fact that the suit is filed for the reason that there is negligence on the part of the defendants, the plaintiff has not even cared to enter into the witness Box and to testify the fact of negligence of the defendants. Even after the disposal of the suit she waited for 534 days for filing the appeal. I find that the dismissal of the appeal on the ground of delay by the lower appellate court is justifiable. I find no reason to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the courts below and to invoke Section 100 of the C.P.C . No questions of law much less any substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. This appeal fails and accordingly dismissed. (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) es HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. --------------------------- R.S.A. No. 167 of 2009 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 3rd June, 2009