IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2008 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1930 RSA.No.86 of 2008 (B) -------------------------- A.S.112/02 OF ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA O.S.169/93 PRL. SUB JUDGE, ALAPPUZHA .................. APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1,3,4,5,9 &10/D2,4,5,6&LRS OF D3: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. KUNJUMON, S/O. MARIYAM BEEVI, VENCHARA PURAYIDAM, ALISSERRY WARD, ALAPPUZHA WEST VILLAGE. 2. RUKIYA BEEVI, D/O. BAVA KUNJU -DO- -DO- 3. RAJA, S/O. RUKIYA BEEVI, -DO- -DO-. 4. AKBAR, S/O. RUKIYA BEEVI, -DO- -DO-. 5. SALI, S/O. MARIYAM BEEVI, -DO- -DO-. 6. KOCHU VAVA, S/O. MARIYAM BEEVI,-DO- -DO- BY ADV. SRI.G.GOPAKUMAR (CHERTHALA) RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS: -------------------------------------------------- 1. T.K.SEETHI, S/O.LATE T.M.KOCHU PAREETH, SALIM MANZIL, THEVARVATTOM MURI,THYCATTUSSERY VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK. 2. SARAH UMMA, W/O. LATE T.M.KOCHU PAREETH, -DO- -DO-. 3. T.K. SALIM, S/O. LATE T.M.KOCHU PAREETH, -DO- -DO-. 4. T.K. MUHAMMED SALI, S/O. LATE T.M.KOCHU PAREETH, -DO- -DO-. RSA.No.86 of 2008 (B) -2- 5. ABIDA BEEVI, S/O. LATE T.M.KOCHU PAREETH -DO- -DO-. 6. NABEEZA YOUSUFKUNJU, D/O. RUKIYA BEEVI, VENCHARA PURAYIDAM, ALISSERRY WARD, ALAPPUZHA WEST VILLAGE. 7. JAMEELA VAHAB, W/O. VAHAB, RESIDING AT VENCHARA PURAYIDAM, ALISSERRY WARD, ALAPPUZHA WEST VILLAGE-(DIED). 8. THAHA, S/O. YOUSUF, RESIDING AT VENCHARA PURAYIDAM, ALISSERRY WARD, ALAPPUZHA WEST VILLAGE. 9. ABDUL VAHAB, S/O. VAHAB, RESIDING AT VENCHARA PURAYIDAM, ALISSERRY WARD, ALAPPUZHA WEST VILLAGE. 10. SHAIJA, D/O. JAMELA VAHAB, -DO- DO-. 11. RIYAS, S/O. JAMELA VAHAB, -DO- -DO-. 12. SHEFEEK, S/O. JAMELA VAHAB, -DO- -DO-. BY ADV. SRI.SUDHEENDRAN. K.Y. FOR R6 & 8 SRI.N.ASHOK KUMAR THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ C. M. Application No.74 of 2008 & R. S. A. No.86 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT This is an application for condonation of delay of 79 days in filing the R.S.A. The judgment assailed passed by the lower appellate court is dt.05/06/07. Copy thereof was applied for on 09/07/07 and the copy was taken delivery of only on 08/08/07 though date fixed to appear to receive copy was on 03/08/07. However, the appeal is filed thereafter only on 11/01/08. 2. In the affidavit filed by the first appellant in support of the delay condonation application his case is that by a mistake his advocate applied for copy of the judgment dt.05/06/07 only on 03/07/07 and though copy was to be taken delivery of on 03/08/07, it was taken delivery of only on 08/08/07 and R. S. A. No.86 of 2008 -2- immediately on receiving the copy of judgment his counsel sent a letter to him but since he was laid up due to pain in connection with an earlier surgery for varicose vein, he could not collect the judgment in time and to entrust the matter with the present counsel and it is after recovery from his ailment that he received copy of the judgment from the lawyer who was appearing in the court below and made arrangement to file the appeal and that is how a delay of 79 days is occurred in filing this appeal. 3. There are altogether six appellants in this R.S.A of whom appellants 3 to 6 are all adult male members who are competent to look after the affairs and if at all the first appellant was not well, arrangement should have been made to cause copy of the lower court judgment being received and the appeal filed making arrangements through them. There R. S. A. No.86 of 2008 -3- is absolutely no evidence to show that the first appellant was laid up as alleged or that he was ever having any surgery. Merely by filing an affidavit falsely stating one reason or the other, inordinate delay of as much as 79 days cannot be condoned so as to disrupt the finality of the judgment passed in favour of the respondents. The reasons stated are not just and sufficient cause to condone the delay of as much as 79 days so as to disturb the rights that have accrued to the successful party by reason of non-filing of appeal. 4. In the result, refusing to condone the delay of 79 days in filing the R.S.A, I dismiss this C. M. Application. Consequently, the R.S.A also stands dismissed. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-