IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2008 / 3RD ASHADHA 1930 RSA.No. 40 of 2006 ------------------------------- AS.180/2000 of PRL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE OS.313/1995 of PRL.M.C.KOZHIKODE-I .................... APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS 1 AND 2 1. ECHANAYI, PRESIDENT,CHIRATTATTU BHAGAVATHY KSHETRA COMMITTEE, CHIRATTATTU, MAKKADA AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE. 2. V.BHASKARAN, SECRETARY, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.N.GOVINDAN NAIR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS 1 AND 2: 1. SATHYAVATHY, NAMBIAMPURATHU HOUSE, THAMARASERY AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. GOPALAKRISHNAN, DO. DO. BY ADV. SMT.T.RESMI DAMODARAN THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. --------------------------- C.M.Appl.No.21/2006 & R.S.A.No.40 of 2006 --------------------------- JUDGMENT This is an application filed by the appellants seeking for condonation of delay of 17 days in filing the appeal. The judgment assailed was pronounced on 31.8.2005 and the copy thereof was applied for only on 30.11.2005. It was made ready and 30.12.2005 was fixed as the date to appear and receive the copy, but it was taken delivery of on 29.12.2005 itself, but this appeal is presented only on 17.1.2006. 2. The application is supported by an affidavit filed by the first appellant, wherein, the cause shown for the delay of 17 days in filing the appeal is that even though instructions had been given to the Lawyer appearing for them in the court below to apply for copies of judgment and decree in appeal, they were applied for only at the end of three months and there was also delay in informing about receipt of copies of judgment and decree by the RSA 40/06 2 counsel and hence the delay. 3. There is no mention as to how the deponent was informed on receipt of copies of judgment and decree and also as to when he was informed. The allegation that though instructions had been given to apply for copies of judgment and decree, they were applied for only at the end of three months is also made against the Lawyer behind his back. The name of the Lawyer, to whom instructions had been so given, is also not mentioned, when the Advocates appearing for them in the court below are more than one. I am not of the view that on such allegations made by the parties behind the back of their Lawyer, the delay has to be condoned, giving allowance for false allegations. In the above view, I refuse to condone the delay of 17 days in filing the appeal and dismiss the C.M. application. Consequently, the Regular Second Appeal also stands dismissed. 24th June, 2008 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv