IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 11TH JULY 2011 / 20TH ASHADHA 1933 Mat.Appeal.No. 342 of 2011() ----------------------------------- OP.1070/2006 of FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ----------------------------------- ASHRAF, S/O. KOCHU, VALIYAKATH HOUSE, THEMPANKADAVU, THALIKULAM, THRISSUR, REP. BY P/A HOLDER N.K. FAREEDUDHEEN, AGED 56, NAJAKKAD HOUSE, H.M.T. COLONY, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SRI.MAHESH V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------------------- SHEMITHA, AGED 31, D/O. ABOOBACKER, OLAVAKKOD HOUSE, PATHAMKALLU, THALIKULAM.P.O, THRISSUR - 580 569. R1 BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/07/2011, ALONG WITH MA NO. 470 OF 2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ---------------------------------- Mat. Appeal Nos.342 & 470 OF 2011 with C.M. Application Nos.961 & 1281 of 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,J. These appeals are by a divorced husband. After divorce, both have married. The wife sued the husband for an amount equal to some ornaments etc. The court below has granted a decree for the sum of Rs.1,25,000/- together with 6% interest from the date of the decree. The husband sued the wife for certain amounts allegedly due. The court below dismissed that suit. We find that the parties had tendered oral evidence and some documentary evidence. 2. The reasons stated for the inordinate delay of 533 and 565 days in filing these appeals is that the appellant husband was contesting the proceedings through a power of attorney holder and that the said power of attorney holder was out of station in the course of his employment and after his return, he contacted the counsel before the court below to get the certified Mat. Appeal Nos.342 & 470 OF 2011 with C.M. Application Nos.961 & 1281 of 2011 2 copy and therefore the delay. We find that the counsel appearing before the court below is not mulcted with any responsibility for the delay. The appellant stands to say nothing as to any ignorance of the court proceedings. He cannot say so because he had tendered evidence before the court below as PW1. We are the view that the reasons projected to have the enormous delay condoned, by merely stating that the power of attorney holder had not taken care of the case and had gone away in connection with his employment and made enquiries only after his return, does not inspire confidence, is wholly insufficient and is no sufficient cause for the purpose of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. We accordingly dismiss the captioned C.M. Applications and consequently reject the appeals. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE dmb