IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2008 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1930 RSA.No. 491 of 2006 ----------------------- (A.S. No 74/05 of the Sub Court, Palai) (O.S. No 144/2000 of Munsiff's Court, Erattupetta) APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS --------------------------------------------- 1. P.J.GEORGE, S/O.JOSEPH, RES.AT PUTHIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KONDOOR KARA, KONDOOR VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK. 2. P.J.THOMAS, PUTHIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KONDOOR KARA, KONDOOR VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK. 3. P.J.SEBASTIAN, PUTHIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KONDOOR KARA, KONDOOR VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN RESPONDENTS: PLAINTIFF ----------------------------- EBY ZACHARIAS, S/O.ZACHARIAS, ELAVANAL HOUSE, THEKKUMMURI KARA, PULIYANNOOR VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.RAJEEV V.KURUP THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. BALACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------- R.S.A. No 491 of 2006 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd May, 2008 JUDGMENT This R.S.A is filed by the defendants in O.S. No 144 of 2000 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Erattupetta. The respondent-plaintiff filed the said suit and the suit was decreed by the trial court as early as on 31.10.2003. An appeal was filed by the appellants before the first appellate court in 2005 with a delay condonation petition. The delay condonation petition was dismissed. As the delay condonation petition was dismissed the appeal also was dismissed. It is against the said dismissal of the appeal by the first appellate court that this R.S.A is filed. 2. What has been produced before this court to file appeal is only the judgment in A.S. No 74 of 2005 which says that as the delay condonation petition is dismissed the appeal also is dismissed. The order dismissing the delay condonation petition is not produced and therefore this court is not enabled to understand as to what was the delay and what was the circumstance under which the delay condonation petition happened to be dismissed by the first appellate court. Counsel for the appellant submits that he may be granted some time to produce a copy of the order passed on the delay condonation petition. I am not prepared to grant any such time as prayed for by a lawyer who is having considerable practice for the reason that the appeal has been filed as early as on 20.05.2006 and this appeal was coming up for admission and hearing on several posting dates and was being adjourned either for reason of absence of any representation or for reason of appellant's counsel asking for adjournment. The reason stated by the appellate court in the judgment under appeal that the appeal is dismissed for reason of RSA 491/06 2 the dismissal of delay condonation petition cannot be assailed as the appeal was dismissed consequent on the dismissal of the delay condonation application. Therefore, dismissal by the first appellate court of the appeal filed by the appellant, in the circumstances, is correct, legal and proper and no question of law and much less any substantial question of law does arise for consideration in this appeal. This R.S.A is hence dismissed in limine refusing admission. Sd/- K.P. BALACHANDRAN Judge 22/05/08 en Order on I.A. No 1212 of 2006 -------------------------------------- Dismissed. Sd/- K.P. Balachandran, Judge 22/05/2008 [true copy]