IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2008 / 6TH SRAVANA 1930 RSA.No. 60 of 2008 ------------------------------- AS.301/2003 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM OS.206/1998 of MUNSIFF COURT, CHANGANACHERRY .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT: PRABHAKARAN, S/O.SREEDHARA PANICKER, AGED 54, RESIDING AT 'USHUA', NEDUMKUNNAM MURI, NEDUMKUNNAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY SRI.E.M.MURUGAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF: SUDHODANAN, S/O.KOCHUKUNJU VAIDYAR, AGED 67, RESIDING AT POIKAYIL HOUSE, NEDUMKUNNAM MURI, NEDUMKUNNAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.JAMES KURIAN THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. --------------------------- C.M.Appl.No.54 of 2008 & R.S.A.No.60 of 2008 --------------------------- JUDGMENT This is an application for condonation of delay of 370 days in filing the appeal. The appeal is filed assailing the judgment in A.S.No.301/03, which was pronounced on 25.7.2006. Copy thereof was applied for on 26.7.2006. Stamp papers called for on 28.8.2006 were produced on 30.8.2006. Though the copy was ready and 16.10.2006 was fixed as the date to appear and receive the copy, copy was taken delivery of only on 28.10.2006 and the appeal is filed thereafter only on 18.1.2008, after one year and three months. 2. In the affidavit filed by the appellant in support of the C.M. Application, it is stated that the appeal ought to have been filed on or before 16.1.2007, but could be filed only on 18.1.2008, with a delay of 370 days. According to the appellant, after collecting the copy of judgment, RSA 60/08 2 he took the case bundle to his residence from Kottayam, but the bundle was lost enroute; that it was with great difficulty that the bundle was traced out and if the bundle was available, the appeal would have been preferred in time and that there is no wilful laches or negligence on his part in not preferring the appeal in time. 3. This sort of lame excuses can be stated by any appellant, who does not file appeal within time. If it is a case where the case bundle has been lost enroute from Kottayam to Nedumkunnam, it is not known as to how he could trace out the case bundle and as to how it was traced out and when and from where and in what manner. Simply by making a bald averment that the case bundle has been lost and could be traced out only with great difficulty, the delay of as much as 370 days in filing the appeal cannot be condoned. There is absolutely no just and sufficient cause to condone the delay of as much as 370 days in filing the appeal. RSA 60/08 3 In the result, refusing to condone the delay of as much as 370 days in filing the appeal, I dismiss this C.M. Application. Consequently, the Regular Second Appeal also stands dismissed. 28th July, 2008 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv