IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 26TH OCTOBER 2010 / 4TH KARTHIKA 1932 RFA.No. 538 of 2009() --------------------- OS.235/2007 of SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR .................... APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF --------------------------------------- ASOK KUMAR, S/O.SOMASEKHARAN, AGED 27 YEARS,KRISHNA MANDIRAM, KAKKANAD P.O.,VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ RESPONDENT(S): DEFENDANTS ------------------------- 1. BAVA,S/O.SULAIMAN, AGED 73 YEARS,KIZHAKKAN HOUSE, PONJASSERRY P.O.,VENGOLA VILLAGE. 2. AUVVA UMMA,W/O.BAVA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,KIZHAKKAN HOUSE, PONJASSERRY P.O.,VENGOLA VILLAGE. 3. SALIM,S/O.BAVA, AGED 47 YEARS,KIZHAKKAN HOUSE, PONJASSERRY P.O.,VENGOLA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.G.RAJAGOPAL SMT.N.RENJINEE DEVI THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COMEUP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- R.F.A.No.538 OF 2009 & C.M.Appl.1475/09 IN I.A.No.3910/10 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. The C.M. application is filed seeking condonation of delay of 341 days in filing the appeal. Different reasons are stated in the affidavit accompanying the application, including that certified copy of the judgment was obtained with the assistance of one Mr.Nadirsha and it was misplaced somewhere. An additional counter affidavit has been placed on record along with I.A.3910/10. The respondents have filed different other materials also. Ultimately, it is also stated that the impugned decree has been satisfied by the defendant depositing the balance sale consideration as decreed by the court below, may be with some variation, which could be satisfied even out of court. In this premise, having looked into the merits of the matter also, we do not find any ground to condone the delay as RFA.538/09 2 sought for. We are not impressed that the appellant could have engaged some other private person and obtained certified copy. Needless to say that the said person, Mr.Nadirsha had retained certified copy somewhere. We are satisfied that no sufficient grounds are raised for condonation of delay. The application is hence dismissed. As a consequence of the dismissal of the C.M.Application, this appeal is rejected since it is barred by limitation. The appeal memorandum being rejected, the appellant is entitled to refund of the entire court fee paid on it. Such refund is ordered hereby. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- P.BHAVADASAN, Judge. kkb.28/10.