IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2008 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1930 RSA.No. 572 of 2007 -------------------------------- A.S.226/2004 of VI ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM O.S.790/2000 of PRL. MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM .............. APPELLANT/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT: CORPORATION OF COCHIN, CORPORATION OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-11, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN NAIR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF: 1. M.B. KALAVATHY, W/O. UPENDRA RAO, D/O. KOIDITHIRTHA, RESIDING AT AYODHYA, POONITHURA P.O., POONITHURA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. 2. RAI ABHILASH, S/O. UPENDRA RAO RESIDING AT AYODHYA, POONITHURA P.O., POONITHURA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. --------------------------- C.M.Appl.No.390 of 2007 & R.S.A.No. 572 of 2007 --------------------------- JUDGMENT This Regular Second Appeal is posted in the defect list today, as notice on C.M.Appl.No.390/07 could not be issued on account of defect in steps. Notice was ordered in the C.M. Application as early as on 2.7.2007. It is almost one year now. It is further seen that the C.M. Application is one filed seeking for condonation of delay of 148 days in filing the appeal. The reasons for the delay stated in the affidavit by the Secretary of the appellant Corporation are that though the judgment was passed on 7.7.2006, by an inadvertent omission, certified copy of the judgment was not applied for in time; that it was only when the execution petition was posted, that omission was noticed; that immediately the Standing Counsel was instructed to apply for certified copy of the judgment and that, that is how the delay of 148 days has been caused in filing the appeal. RSA 572/07 2 2. It is seen that application for copy of the judgment appealed against dated 7.7.2006 was filed only on 5.1.2007 and further that despite receipt of copy on 12.1.2007, the appeal was filed only on 9.3.2007. For the said delay, there is absolutely no explanation and the explanation offered by the Secretary is not at all sufficient to condone the said delay that has been caused after receipt of copy of the judgment appealed against. I see no reason to afford further opportunity to the appellant to cure the defects, so as to have service of notice on C.M.Appl.No.390/07 being completed on the respondents. Counsel for the appellant is absent and there is no representation even on his behalf. In the circumstances, I dismiss this C.M. Application. Consequently, the Regular Second Appeal also stands dismissed. 20th June, 2008 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv