IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1932 RSA.No. 264 of 2009() --------------------- AS.146/2005 of I ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM OS.1905/2002 of II ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANT ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. SUMATHY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, W/O.K.P.MADHAVAN NAIR, KANIEHATH, R/AT. KRISHNA NIVAS, MANAKUNNAM VILLAGE. 2. K.P.MADHAVAN NAIR, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.LATE PARAMESWARAN NAIR, KRISHNA NIVAS, MANAKKUNNAM VILLAGE, UDAYAMPEROOR DESOM, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS ------------------------------------ 1. SASIDHARAN, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN, PADATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, MANAKKUNNAM VILLAGE, UDAYAMPEROOR DESOM, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. ANANDAN, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.MADHAVAN, PADATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, MANAKKUNNAM VILLAGE, UDAYAMPEROOR DESOM, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. VIJAYA, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.ANANDAN, KARIVELIPARAMBIL(H),MANAKUNNAM VILLAGE, UDAYAMPEROOR DESOM, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. SIVAKUMAR, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.VIKRAMAN, SIVAVILASAM, NOW RESIDING AT KARIVELIPPARAMBIL, MANAKKUNNAM VILLAGE, UDAYAMPEROOR DESOM, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. RSA.No. 264 of 2009() 2 5. ANILKUMAR, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.THANKAPPAN, VALAVANTHARA HOUSE, MANAKKUNNAM VILLAGE, UDAYAMPEROOR DESOM, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 6. AMBIKA G.MENON, AGED 61 YEARS, D/O.RAMAKRISHNA MENON, KINGINISITTATHY PARAMBIL HOUSE, NOW R/AT. POORNASREE, KARIVELIPARAMBIL, MANAKKUNNAM VILLAGE, UDAYAMPEROOR DESOM, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.K.C.CHARLES FOR R1 & 6 THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: RSA.No. 264 of 2009() 3 ORDER IN I.A Nos. 2650/2010 & 1080/2010 DISMISSED. 12/11/2010 Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- C.M.Appl. No.200 OF 2009 IN R.S.A No.264 OF 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of November 2010 ORDER The application has been filed to condone the delay of 395 days in filing the appeal, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Though notice ordered to the respondents by service, they have not turned up. Heard the counsel for the petitioners/appellants. Perusing the affidavit, it is seen, the cause only pleaded for condoning the delay of more than one year in filing the appeal is that the appellants were under the impression that in view of the judgment rendered in another suit their rights are protected. No other particular with reference to that suit on which the appellants entertained such a belief is stated in the affidavit sworn to in support of the petition for condonation of delay. It is evident that the cause as pleaded above has been stated without any bonafide, but, only to show some cause to seek condonation of the inordinate delay on 395 days in filing the appeal. No sufficient cause has been made out C.M.A No.200/2009 in R.S.A No.264/2009 - 2 - for condoning the delay. The petition is only to be dismissed. I do so. R.S.A No.264/2009 Delay petition dismissed and hence, the appeal is rejected. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge vdv