IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2008 / 2ND ASHADHA 1930 RSA.No.288 of 2008 (A) --------------------------- AS.455/2000 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), THRISSUR OS.414/1998 of II ADDL.M.C.,THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF ------------------------------------------- SHOWKATHALI,AGED 58,S/O.PONTHELAVALAPPIL KOCHU MUHAMMED HAJI, PAZHUVIL DESOM,KURUMBILAVU VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER KUNJOOR SAID MOHAMMED HANEEFA, AGED 55,S/O. SAID MOHAMMED, RESIDING AT KUNJOOR HOUSE, BARATHA DESOM, KALLOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK,THRISSUR DT. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT ------------------------------------------------- AYISHA, MINOR, D/O.ABDUL KARIA, C/O.P.K.YOOSUF, "HANA" MAVOOR ROAD, CHAVVAYUR, KOZHIKODE REP. BY GUARDIAN AND FATHER ABDUL KARIA, S/O.PONTHALAVALAPPIL KOCHU MOHAMMED HAJI. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR FOR R1 THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ C. M. Application No.239 of 2008 & R. S. A. No.288 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT This is an application filed by the power of attorney holder of the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 1244 days in filing the appeal. The judgment assailed is one delivered on 31/05/04. Copy of the judgment was applied for on the very next day namely on 01/06/04 and copy was taken delivery of on 05/08/04 though the date fixed to appear to receive copy was on 27/07/04. Though copy was taken delivery of on 05/08/04, this R.S.A is filed only on 17/03/08 after more than three and a half years. The reason for the delay assigned in the affidavit filed by the power of attorney of holder in support of C.M.Application is that after the judgment was pronounced by the first appellate court, for a considerably long period, the original plaintiff did not contact him; that the R. S. A. No.288 of 2008 -2- original plaintiff came down to Kerala recently and after reviewing relevant aspects it was found that the judgment is incorrect and that there are much flaws in the judgment and that when the matter was taken up to the lawyer at Ernakulam for consultation it was found that the judgment and decree has to be challenged as otherwise it would permanently foreclose the right of the original plaintiff and that it is therefore, that this appeal is filed though with a delay of 1244 days. There is no affidavit filed by the original appellant. There is no explanation forthcoming either through the original appellant or from the power of attorney holder as to why it so happened that after the judgment was pronounced by the first appellate court, it so happened that for a considerably long period the original plaintiff did not contact the deponent/power of attorney holder. It is also not disclosed as to when the plaintiff came over to Kerala except that it is mentioned R. S. A. No.288 of 2008 -3- that he came down to Kerala recently. The inordinate delay of as much as 1244 days is sought to be got condoned by such unsatisfactory explanations made in a casual and unconvincing manner that there is no room for this Court to think that there is any just and sufficient cause to condone the delay of as much as 1244 days in filing the R.S.A. Further, rights which have accrued to the successful party/the respondent by reason of not filing the appeal in time cannot be disturbed also by condoning the delay of as much as 1244 days favouring the appellant who was culpably negligent in the matter of conduct of his case. In the result, I dismiss this C.M. Application. Consequently, the R.S.A also stands dismissed. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-