IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2008 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1930 RSA.No. 528 of 2005 ----------------------- AS.89/1996 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT-I,MAVELIKKARA OS.216/1993 of MUNSIFF COURT, MAVELIKKARA .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF: ---------------------------------------- JANARDHANAN, MANGALASSERIL, ERUMAKKUZHI, PALAMEL VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.R.REJI SMT.SHIVA RAJA RESHMI SRI.K.V.MOHANAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT: ------------------------------------------------ VILASINI, KALLIKKATTU PUTHEN VEEDU, EDAKKUNNAM MURI, NOORANADU. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) FOR R1, THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. BALACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------------- C.M. Application No 339 of 2005 and R. S. A. No 528 of 2005 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd June 2008 JUDGMENT This is an application for condonation of delay of 171 days in filing the appeal. Judgment assailed was delivered on 22.10.2003. Copy of the judgment was applied for on 06.11.2003 and copy of the judgment was taken delivery of on 07.08.2004 though date fixed to receive the copy was 06.08.2004. According to the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the C.M. Application the appeal ought to have been filed on or before 20.10.2004. The appeal was however filed only on 08.04.2005. According to the appellant, he had been suffering from rheumatic fever from the second week of September 2004 and he recovered from illness only by 01.04.2005 and he was able to go to Ernakulam only on 03.04.2005 and hence the delay in filing the appeal. Apart from the averment that the appellant was suffering from rheumatic fever from the second week of September 2004 till 01.04.2005 there is absolutely no record produced to show that he was laid up and therefore was not able to go to Ernakulam and RSA 528/05 2 make arrangements for filing the appeal. By making such allegations without any proof whatsoever the inordinate delay of 171 days cannot be condoned to the detriment of the respondent to whom rights had accrued by reason of the decree in her favour having acquired finality by non filing of the appeal in time. Such rights cannot be disturbed so lightly and the reasons stated for condonation of delay are not convincing and there is no just and sufficient reason to condone the delay. Hence I dismiss this C. M. Application. Consequently this R.S.A also stands dismissed. Sd/- K.P. BALACHANDRAN Judge 03/06/2008 en [true copy]