IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2008 / 13TH ASHADHA 1930 FAO.No. 220 of 2006() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18/10/2005 IN IA.55/2003 IN IOP.32/2002 of SUB COURT, SULTHAN BATHERY .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS 1,2,4 & 6/PLAINTIFFS.1,2,4 & 6: ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MAKKIMALA TEA ESTATES (P) LTD.,A CO.REGD UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT,1956,HAVING REGD.OFFICE AT 425,DEVAMBA AGRAHAR,MYSORE & ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AT 16/14,2ND CROSS, SHOBHANAGAR,AVARAMPALAYAM, COIMBATORE-6 AND AT MAKKIMALA TEA ESTATE P.O., CHERAKKARA P.O.,MANANTHAVADI VIA.,WAYANAD DIST. 2. K. RAMARAJ, S/O.LATE KALI CHETTIAR, AGED 73 YEARS, NOW RESIDING AT 16/14,2ND CROSS, SHOBHANAGAR, AVARAMPALAYAM, GANAPATHI P.O., COIMBATORE-6. 3. R. VENUGOPAL, S/O. K. RAMARAJ, AGED 48 YEARS, NO EMPLOYMENT,NOW RESIDING AT 16/14 2ND CROSS, SHOBHANAGAR, AVARAMPALAM, COIMBATORE-6. 4. V.K. SUNDARAM, AGED 43 YEARS, VADAKKEPARAMBIL HOUSE, GOLDSMITH, VELIYANNOOR P.O. KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS AND PETITIONERS 3 AND 5: ------------------------------------------------- 1. K.M. IBRAHIM, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, MAIN ROAD, SUNTICOPPA-571 237, COORG DIST., KARNATAKA. 2. NAFEESA IBRAHIM, W/O. K.M. IBRAHIM, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, C/O. K.M. IBRAHIM,MAIN ROAD, SUNTICOPPA-571237, COORG DIST., KARNATAKA. -2- F.A.O.NO.220/06 3. K.I. SHERIFF, VALLIYOORKAVU ROAD, ARATTUTHARA, MANANTHAVADI, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 4. K.I. ABDULRAHMAN, C/O.K.M.IBRAHIM, MAIN ROAD, SUNTICOPPA-571 237, COORG DIST., KARNATAKA. 5. R. VARADARAJAN, S/O.K.RAMARAJ, AGED 45 YEARS, COMPANY EMPLOYEE, NOW RESIDING AT 53-A, SOUTH STREET NO.2, AVARAMPALAYAM, GANAPATHY P.O., COIMBATORE-6. 6. S. RAMU, S/O. SOMASUNDARAM, AGED 30 YEARS, NO OCCUPATION, RESIDING AT 53-A, SOUTH STREET NO.2, AVARAMPALAYAM, GANAPATHY P.O., COIMBATORE-6. BY ADV. SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI (SR.) FOR R1 TO 4 SRI.GIBI.C.GEORGE FOR R6 THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 4/7/2008, ALONG WITH FAO NO. 82/ 2006, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. .................................................................... C.M.Appln. No.956 of 2006 in F.A.O. No.220 of 2006 .................................................................... Dated this the 16th day of October, 2007. ORDER Raman, J. This is an application for condonation of delay of 238 days in filing the appeal. In the supporting affidavit it is averred that after receipt of the certified copy, the file was entrusted to a counsel for preparing the appeal memorandum and subsequently because of some difference of opinion between the counsel and the client, the file was taken back and entrusted the same with another counsel. The newly appointed counsel wanted some more documents and those documents were collected and given to him which took some time. Counter affidavit has been filed opposing condonation of the delay. It is true that the averment as such is not quite convincing. When was the case entrusted to the earlier counsel, when was it taken back, when was it entrusted to the new counsel, what were the documents required by him and why the documents could not be procured in time are not mentioned in the affidavit. The affidavit in such circumstances is too vague. However, taking a lenient view we think we 2 can allow this petition only on terms. Accordingly this application is allowed on condition that an amount of rupees one thousand five hundred shall be paid to the respondents through counsel within two weeks, failing which the delay condonation petition will stand dismissed. Post after two weeks. P.R.RAMAN Judge V.K.MOHANAN Judge pms