IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2008 / 25TH ASHADHA 1930 RSA.No. 1294 of 2005 ------------------------- AS.23/2000 of SUB COURT, KASARAGOD OS.164/1999 of PRL.MUNSIFF, KASARAGOD .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF -------------------------------------- MOHAMMED M., S/O.MOIDEEN KUNHI, MUSLIM CULTIVATOR, MEEPERI HOUSE, HEROOR VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS --------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR OF KASARAGOD DISTRICT, KASARAGOD P.O., VIDYANAGAR. 2. THE TALUK TAHSILDAR, KASARAGOD TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, KASARAGOD. 3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), MANJESHWARE FIRKA, KASARAGOD. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ICHLANGOD VILLAGE, ICHALAMGODE GROUP, ICHALANGODE P.O. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. BALACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------------------- C.M. Application No 823 of 2005 and R.S.A. No 1294 of 2005 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th July 2008 JUDGMENT This is an application seeking for condonation of delay of 46 days in filing the appeal. Judgment appealed against is one pronounced on 25.06.2005. Copy thereof was applied for on 27.06.2005. Stamp papers called for on 07.07.2005 were produced on 11.07.2005 and copy of judgment was taken delivery of on 20.07.2005, though the date fixed to appear to receive copy was 19.07.2005. Though copy of the judgment was taken delivery of on 20.07.2005 this appeal was filed only on 02.12.2005. 2. The reason assigned for the delay in the affidavit filed by the petitioner-appellant in support of the C.M. Application is that the counsel appearing on his behalf informed him of the dismissal of the case in time but he was out of Kerala for some personal reasons and therefore unable to collect the judgment and the records from his counsel and entrust the same to the advocate for filing appeal and therefore there is a delay of 46 days in filing the appeal. There is no RSA 1294/05 2 mention as to whether the appellant is employed, whether he is employed outside Kerala or for what purpose he was out of Kerala for personal reasons and from which date to which date he was out of Kerala; on which date he collected the judgment and records from the counsel in the court below and as to when he entrusted the records with his counsel before this court for filing appeal. Suppressing all the necessary details which are required to appreciate as to whether there is just and sufficient cause for condoning the delay, the appellant has moved this application explaining the delay stating that though the counsel informed him of the dismissal of the case in time he was out of Kerala for some personal reasons and was therefore unable to collect the judgment and case records and arrange filing of the appeal. On such vague averments the appellant cannot hope to get the delay condoned as if it is as a matter of course that courts are condoning delay in filing the appeals. The rights which have accrued to the successful party by non filing of the appeal cannot be taken away or interfered with on such applications made by parties who are culpably negligent in conducting their case and showing favour to such parties will be doing injustice to the respondents. In the absence of just and RSA 1294/05 3 sufficient reason to condone the delay, I dismiss this C.M. Application. Consequently, this R.S.A also stands dismissed. Sd/- K.P. BALACHANDRAN Judge 16/07/2008 en [true copy]