IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 12TH JULY 2011 / 21ST ASHADHA 1933 RSA.No. 1230 of 2010() ---------------------- AS.174/2007 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT (SPL.COURT), KOTTAYAM OS.739/2005 of PRL.Munsiff .Court, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT NO.1 ------------------------------------------------------ SAJI JACOB, S/O. JACOB, EMPLOYED AT SALE TAX DEPARTMENT, BETHEL VAYALUNKAL, NEAR S.B.HIGH SCHOOL, CHANGANASSERRY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.THAMPAN THOMAS SRI.B.V.JOY SANKER SMT.JANCY ALEX RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT NO.1/PLAINTIFF ---------------------------------------- 1. M/S. KARAPPARA CHITTY FUND, KOTTAYAM, HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT 363/3, TRANSPORT NAGAR, NORWAL, JAMMU TAWI AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AT CENTRAL JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM-1, REP.BY ITS PARTNER SAJI JOHN, AGED 44, S/O. JOHN, KARAPPARA VETTIYIL, VAKATHANAM VILLAGE,CHANGANASSERY TALUK, KTYM DIST. 2. M.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, S/O. PADMANABHAN PILLAI, SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, MAVILA HOUSE, VAZHAPPALLY WEST, CHANGANASSERY-686 103. ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) FOR R1 SRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY FOR R1 SRI.BOBBY GEORGE FOR R1 THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J ........................................... C.M.APPLICATION No. 909 of 2010 & RSA No.1230 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF JULY, 2011 ORDER/JUDGMENT CMA 909 of 2010 is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 666 days in filing the appeal. The reason shown in the affidavit filed by the appellant is that though the certified copy for filing the appeal was taken on 16.10.2008, as he was transferred to Wayanad, he was busy with the work in connection with the office and he could contact his counsel before the appellate court only during September, 2010 and he was under the bonafide belief that the matter was still pending and his counsel could not inform him about the disposal of the appeal and he was advised to file an appeal and at that time the certified copy was misplaced at the office of the counsel and it could be traced out and received by the appellant only on 9.10.2010 and therefore the delay occurred. The affidavit is sworn to on 28.10.2010 and the appeal was filed on the same day. 2. The respondent opposed the application filing a counter RSA 1230/2010 2 affidavit contending that the reasons are not sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay and the affidavit does not disclose when he was transferred to Wayanad and also why he could not contact his counsel for two years from 16.10.2008 to September, 2010 and contending that the delay cannot be condoned. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant and first respondent were heard. 4. The first appeal was dismissed on 31.7.2008. The certified copy of the decree and judgment shows that copy application was filed without much delay on 5.8.2008 and the certified copy was made ready on 30.10.2008, though it was received by the counsel only on 16.10.2008. The appeal was filed only on 28.10.2010, two years thereafter. The reason shown is that appellant was transferred to Wayanad. As rightly pointed out by the respondent, the affidavit does not disclose when he was transferred. Even if he was transferred, there is no case in the affidavit that he did not reach his native place at Kottayam after his transfer till September 2010. The fact that appellant was transferred to another District away from his native place is not a ground to condone the delay. Even if the contention is true, it RSA 1230/2010 3 only reveals that he was wilfully negligent. Such callous laches cannot be condoned. As there is an inordinate delay of 666 days in filing the appeal and sufficient cause not shown to condone the delay, the application is dismissed. Consequently the appeal is also dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk