IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2010 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1931 Arb.A.No. 2 of 2010() --------------------- OPARB.31/1995 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS IN THE O.P.(Arb) ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, KIP CIRCLE, KOLLAM. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.K.G.SURESH BABU RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN O.P.(ARB). --------------------------------------- YOHANNAN KURIAKOSE,GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR ARIKUPURATHU HOUSE, MANEED.P.O,PIRAVOM,ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.K.BABU THOMAS FOR R1 THIS ARBITRATION APPEALS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. --------------------------- C.M.Appln.No.108 OF 2010 & Arbitration Appeal No.2 OF 2010 --------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Basheer, J. In this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the prayer is to condone the delay of 703 days in filing this appeal. 2. The order passed by the Subordinate Judges Court, Ernakulam in O.P.(Arb) No.31/95 is sought to be challenged in the appeal. 3. The Superintending Engineer, who is the deponent in the affidavit, states that the application for certified copy of the judgment and decree was submitted on 15th December, 2008, though admittedly, the court below had passed the order in the Original Petition on 24th September, 2007. There is not even a semblance of an attempt to explain the inordinate delay of more Arb.Appeal No.2/2010 2 than one year and three months in filing the application for issue of a certified copy of the impugned order. 4. Admittedly, the certified copy of the order was received by the deponent on 2nd February, 2009. But, the appeal is seen to have been filed only on 12th January, 2010. Yet again, there is absolutely no explanation for the inordinate delay, eventhough it is vaguely stated that necessary directions from the higher authorities had to be obtained before filing the appeal. 5. There is yet another strange lapse on the part of the appellant, as revealed from the affidavit. It appears that the appeal was filed before the Registry on 28th August, 2009. But it was returned by the Registry since copy of the decree was not produced along with the appeal. The defect was cured only after five months. This shows the callous indifference and casual approach of the appellant in dealing with a matter involving public funds. We do not propose to make any further comment. Arb.Appeal No.2/2010 3 6. Having perused the averments in the affidavit, we are not at all satisfied with the explanation offered for condonation of delay. In fact, the respondent in his counter affidavit has pointed out that the delay is not of 703 days, but it is infact 798 days. The said contention appears to be correct also. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances, we do not find any reason to condone the delay. Therefore, the application is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) (P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE) ps