IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2008 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1930 RSA.No.259 of 2007 (E) ---------------------------- AS.204/1999 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR OS.564/1995 of MUNSIFF COURT,CHAVAKKAD .................... APPELLANT/1ST APPELLANT/1ST DEFENDANT: ------------------------------------------------------- SUBRAMANIAN, AGED 4O YEARS, S/O.ARAKAPARAMBIL KOCHAKAN,TALIKULAM AMSOM, THAMPANKADAVU DESOM,CHAVAKKADU TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT 2 TO 12 AND SECOND APPELLANT/LEGAL HEIRS OF THE ORIGINAL PLAINTIFF AND SECOND DEFENDANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. BHASKARAN NAIR, S/O.PURAKAT THAMPANKADAVU DESOM,THALIKULAM AMSOM, CHAVAKAD TALUK. 2. PANKAJAKSHI, AGED 50, D/O.PURAKAT BHASKARAN,W/O.VENU, THAMPANKADAVU DESOM,THALIKULAM AMSOM, CHAVAKAD TALUK. 3. DEVU, AGED 46, D/O.PURAKAT BHASKARAN, THAMPANKADAVU DESOM, THALIKULAM AMSOM, CHAVAKAD TALUK. 4. KRISHNAKUMAR, AGED 45, S/O.PURAKAT BHASKARAN, THAMPANKADAVU DESOM, THALIKULAM AMSOM, CHAVAKAD TALUK. 5. ACHU, AGED 42, D/O.PURAKAT BHASKARAN THAMPANKADAVU DESOM, THALIKULAM AMSOM, CHAVAKAD TALUK. RSA.No.259 of 2007 (E) -2- 6. NANDINI, AGED 40, D/O.PURAKAT BHASKARAN THAMPANKADAVU DESOM, THALIKULAM AMSOM, CHAVAKAD TALUK. 7. GOPALU, AGED 35, S/O.PURAKAT BHASKARAN THAMPANKADAVU DESOM, THALIKULAM AMSOM, CHAVAKAD TALUK. 8. PRABHA, AGED 32, S/O.PURAKAT BHASKARAN THAMPANKADAVU DESOM, THALIKULAM AMSOM, CHAVAKAD TALUK. 9. SATHI, AGED 29, D/O.PURAKAT BHASKARAN THAMPANKADAVU DESOM, THALIKULAM AMSOM, CHAVAKAD TALUK. 10. SIVAN, AGED 27,S/O.PURAKAT BHASKARAN THAMPANKADAVU DESOM, THALIKULAM AMSOM, CHAVAKAD TALUK. 11. RAJU, AGED 25,S/O.PURAKAT BHASKARAN THAMPANKADAVU DESOM, THALIKULAM AMSOM, CHAVAKAD TALUK. * 12. KOCHAKAN, AGED 76,S/O.ARAKAPARAMBIL CHERUNGORAN, THAMPANKADAVU DESOM, THALIKULAM AMSOM, CHAVAKAD TALUK. [DELETED] *[R12 IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER DT.18/12/07 ON I.A.2279/07] BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN FOR R1TO 11 SMT.R.MEERA FOR R1 TO R11 SMT.A.R.DIVYA FOR R1 TO R11 THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ C. M. Appl.158 of 2007 & R. S. A. No.259 of 2007 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT This an application for condonation of delay of 649 days in filing the R.S.A. Respondents 1 to 11 have filed counter strongly objecting to the condonation of delay prayed for. 2. The judgment assailed in this appeal is the judgment passed by the first appellate court in A.S.204/99 on 17/01/05. Copy of the said judgment had been applied for on 19/01/05 and date fixed to appear to receive copy was on 03/03/05 though it was received only on 04/03/05. However, the appeal is filed only on 09/03/07. 3. The above details are not there in the affidavit filed in support of C.M.Appl. No.158/07. According to the appellant/ R. S. A. No.259 of 2007 -2- petitioner, he used to make consistent enquiries with his lawyer in the court below to know the outcome of the appeal, but then he had always been told that the appeal has not been disposed of and further that his counsel used to inform him that there has been some decision in the case and thereupon, he asked for the authenticated copy of the judgment and decree but it was not given to him even after much persistent attempts and that ultimately he could gather that the case has gone against him. He further alleges that immediately all the required steps were taken for getting the certified copy and that his Advocate thereafter started telling him that he has applied for getting the certified copy but only when he got the certified copy ultimately that he could know that the certified copy was obtained much earlier and that his counsel did not inform him. It is his further case that R. S. A. No.259 of 2007 -3- when asked, he was told that the counsel happened to misplace it and that was traced out only then and that there is no wilful negligence or omission on his part in filing the second appeal in time. 4. It is worthy to note that he does not mention the name of any lawyer except mentioning in the affidavit “my lawyer”. The affidavit has been sworn to behind the back of the lawyer and consequently, the lawyer in the court below is unaware of such serious allegations that are being made against him which would be sufficient for proceedings being taken against him for professional misconduct. By making wanton allegations, against a lawyer behind his back, a party cannot seek to have the relief of having delay condoned and that too delay of as much as 649 days. There is absolutely no merit or just and sufficient cause to have the delay of 649 days R. S. A. No.259 of 2007 -4- in filing the R.S.A condoned. 5. In the result, refusing the prayer to condone the delay of as much as 649 days, I dismiss this C.M. Application. Consequently, the R.S.A also stands dismissed. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-