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. 412 of 2008 --------------------------------- AS.35/1996 of SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM OS.162/1994 of MUNSIFF-MAGISTRATE COURT, PATTAMBI .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF: JANAKI, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN, KANATHODIYIL HOUSE, THRITHALA AMSOM, NHANGATTIRI POST, OTTAPALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI SRI.R.SREEHARI RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT: V.V.SARADA, AGED 56, W/O.GOPALAN, VETTUKATTVALAPPIL HOUSE, THRITHALA AMSOM, NHANGATTIRI POST, OTTAPALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH SRI.V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY 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.326 of 2008 & R.S.A.No.412 of 2008 --------------------------- JUDGMENT This is an application filed by the appellant seeking for condonation of delay of 89 days in filing the appeal. The judgment under appeal was pronounced on 15.6.2007 and the copy thereof was applied for only on 20.6.2007. The stamp papers called for on 7.7.2007 were produced only on 11.7.2007 and the copy was taken delivered of on 21.7.2007, the day fixed to appear and receive the copy. 2. In the affidavit filed by the appellant in support of the C.M. Application, the reason for the delay alleged is that after receipt of copy of the judgment, she could not contact the Advocate in time and when she contacted the advocate in October, she was advised to take up the matter in appeal. It is further alleged that since she could not engage a Lawyer at Ernakulam in time due to RSA 412/08 2 financial stringency, the appeal could be filed only on 11.1.2008, with a delay of 89 days. 3. There is no averment in the affidavit as to what prevented the appellant from contacting her Lawyer from 21.7.2007 till October 2007. As regards the averment that due to financial stringency, she could not engage a Lawyer at Ernakulam also there is no merit, as the court fee payable in the Regular Second Appeal is only Rs.204/- and the court fee paid is only Rs.68/-, being 1/3rd of the court fee payable. The reasons alleged can only be considered as a ruse to get the delay condoned. I am not of the view that on such bald allegations, the delay of as much as 89 days in filing the appeal has to be condoned, showing leniency to the appellant, thereby working out harassment to the successful party to whom rights have accrued consequent on the decree in their favour, not being appealed against in time. There is no just and sufficient cause to condone the delay. RSA 412/08 3 In the result, refusing to condone the delay of as much as 89 days in filing the appeal, I dismiss this C.M. Application. Consequently, the Regular Second Appeal also stands dismissed. 24th June, 2008 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv