IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2011 / 4TH MAGHA 1932 FAO.No. 365 OF 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19/12/2009 IN IA.4211/2008 IN OS.421/2006 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER/DEFENDANT ------------------------------------------ CATHERINE ALEX LOBO, AGED 51 YEARS, W/O. LATE MR.ALEX LOBO, RESIDING AT ALCATH HOUSE, NEENDAKARA P.O., NEENDAKARA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.THYPARAMBIL THOMAS THOMAS RESPONDENT/ COUNTER PETITIONER/ PLAINTIFF: ------------------------------------------------------- ANSELEM, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O. LATE MR. AUGUSTINE, RESIDING AT TONY LAND, KOTTIYAM P.O., ADICHANALLOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM. PIN: 686066 ADV. SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR SMT.P.LISSY JOSE. THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.M. APPLN. 1959 OF 2010 & F.A.O. 365 OF 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = == == = = = = DATED THIS, THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2011. J U D G M E N T Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. This matter arises from an application to set aside an exparte decree after condoning the delay in filing it. The appeal in hand is also accompanied by the captioned application seeking condonation of delay of 210 days in filing this appeal. 2. The appellant is the defendant in a suit for money. The plaint claim was supported by documentary evidence in the form of cheque. We have perused the written statement. It contains denial of the transaction as alleged by the plaintiff. It also contains different other assertions denying the plaint claim; but ultimately stating that there was a transaction of lending and the amounts borrowed by the defendant were repaid. The issuance of cheque is stated to have been made to support the lending by the plaintiff to the defendant. We notice these facts only because of the written statement further proceeding to indicate that the plaintiff and defendant are FAO 365/2010 2 distantly related and the transaction was made on the basis of the mutual confidence. 3. Admittedly, the defendant was served with summons. She had filed written statement. She knew the date of posting of the suit for trial. The application to set aside the exparte decree and application to condone the delay in applying to set aside the exparte decree were filed contending that she was struck with viral fever. The delay in applying to set aside the exparte decree, going by the pleadings of the appellant before us in the form of an affidavit in C.M. Application No. 1959 of 2010, is 412 days. The plea attributed before the court below in explanation of that delay was not supported by any material. The court below, therefore, dismissed the application for condonation of delay and consequently, the application to set aside the exparte decree. 4. Yet, this appeal is filed with further delay and seeking condonation of the delay of 210 days. This means that the appellant took more than 200 days further to come up in appeal to this Court. Even here, going by para 4 of the affidavit accompanying the application for condonation of delay, we do not find that any reason whatsoever is FAO 365/2010 3 mentioned for the delay in filing this appeal. The whole description in paragraph 3 is about the delay in the court below. With this, we are satisfied that the appellant has failed to show sufficient cause to condone the delay of 210 days in filing this appeal. On merits also, we are of the view that the appellant is not entitled to succeed. For these reasons, the C.M. Application and F.A.O. are dismissed. No costs. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, (JUDGE) P.S. GOPINATHAN, (JUDGE) knc/-