IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2008 / 26TH ASHADHA 1930 RSA.No. 717 of 2006 --------------------------------- AS.108/1994 of SUB COURT, TIRUR OS.114/1979 of MUNI-MAGI.COURT, PONNANI .................... APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS: 1. THANEEKKATTIL KUNHIBAPPU, S/O. KUNHU, PERUMPADAPPA AMSOM, CHERUVALLUR DESOM, PONNANI TALUK. 2. CHAMATHAL AMINU UMMA, W/O. KUNHIVAPPU, DO. DO. 3. SUHARABI, D/O. KUNHIVAPPU, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI (SR.) RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/[LAINTIFF & D4: 1. THANEERKATTIL BAPPUTTY @ MOOSA S/O. MATHEVALAPPIL KUNHU, PERUMPADAPPA AMSOM, CHRUVALLUR DESOM, TIRUR TALUK. 2. CHOOLAPURATHI VELAYUDHAN, S/O.THUPPU, PERUMPADAPPA AMSOM, CHERUVALLUR DESOM, PONNANI TALUK (DIED). BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN FOR R1 SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH FOR R1 SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR FOR R1 THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. --------------------------- C.M.Appl.No.523 of 2006 & R.S.A.No.717 of 2006 --------------------------- JUDGMENT This is an application for condonation of delay of 78 days in filing the Regular Second Appeal. The judgment under appeal is dated 26.11.2005. Copy thereof was applied for only on 15.12.2005. Stamp papers called for on 28.1.2006 were produced only on 1.2.2006. Copy was taken delivery of only on 23.3.2006, though 21.3.2006 was fixed as the date to appear and receive the copy. According to the appellants, the appeal ought to have been filed on or before 1.6.2006, but is filed only on 18.8.2006 and hence, there is a delay of 78 days in filing the appeal. 2. The reasons assigned in the affidavit filed by the first appellant in support of the application for condonation of delay are that Clerk of his Lawyer in the court below wrote to him informing that copy of judgment is received, but he RSA 717/06 2 did not get that letter; that he was under the impression that he will get information from the Advocate when copy is received; that finally since for a long time he did not get any information, he met his Lawyer during the second week of August 2006 and then only he knew that copy of judgment was received as early as on 23.3.2006 and that thus, there occurred a delay of 78 days in filing the appeal. A counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent vehemently objecting to the condonation of delay. 3. The affidavit itself shows that even after dismissal of the appeal, he did not contact his Lawyer till second week of August 2006 and in any event, he did not contact his Lawyer in between 23.3.2006 and second week of August 2006, namely for about five months. This shows that the appellants were not at all keen in having the copy of judgment received and appeal filed. According to the respondents, it was only when execution RSA 717/06 3 petition was filed by them and copy thereof was served that he rushed to this Court and filed the appeal and obtained an order staying proceeding further with execution. I see no reason at all, in the circumstances of this case, to condone the delay of as much as 78 days in filing the Regular Second Appeal, especially when, there is no just and sufficient cause to condone the delay. In the result, refusing to condone the delay of as much as 78 days in filing the Regular Second Appeal, I dismiss this C.M. Application. Consequently, the Regular Second Appeal also stands dismissed. 17th July, 2008 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv