IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2008 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1930 RSA.No.1188 of 2004 ( ) ----------------------------- AS.18/1997 of SUB COURT, QUILANDY OS.190/1994 of MUNSIFF COURT, QUILANDY .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT -------------------------------------------- VETTARAMBATH SAMIKKUTTY, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, S/O. PACHUKKUTTY, FARMER, RESIDING AT NODHI PARAMBIL HOUSE, THIRUVANGOOR AMSOM, VENGALAM DESOM, QUILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS ---------------------------------------------------- 1. VETTARAMBATH PRABHAKARAN, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, AGED 51 YEARS, FARMER, THIRUVANGOOR AMSOM, VENGALAM DESOM, QUILANDY TALUK KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA STATE. 2. VETTARAMBATH SYAMALA, AGED 41 YEARS, D/O. VELAYUDHAN, OWN AFFAIRS, THIRUVANGOOR AMSOM, VENGALAM DESOM, QUILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT KERALA STATE. 3. VETTARAMBATH PRAKSHAN S/O. VELAYUDHAN, AGED 44 YEARS, COOLIE, THIRUVANGOOR AMSOM, VENGALAM DESOM, QUILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA STATE. 4. VETARAMBATH PRADEEPAN, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, AGED 39 YEARS, DRIVER, THIRUVANGOOR AMSOM, VENGALAM DESOM, QUILANDY TALUK KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA STATE. RSA.No.1188 of 2004 -2- 5. VETARAMBATH SHEEJA, D/O. VELAYUDHAN, AGED 29 YEARS, OWN AFFAIRS, THIRUVANGOOR AMSOM, VENGALAM DESOM, QUILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA STATE. 6. VETARAMBATH SHARMILA, D/O. VELAYUDHAN, AGED 34 YEARS, OWN AFFAIRS, THIRUVANGOOR AMSOM, VENGALAM DESOM, QUILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT KERALA STATE. 7. VETTARAMBATH PRAMODAN, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, AGED 31 YEARS, COOLIE, THIRUVANGOOR AMSOM, VENGALAM DESOM, QUILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA STATE. 8. VETTARAMBATH ANILKUMAR, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, AGED 45 YEARS, OWN AFFAIRS, THIRUVANGOOR AMSOM, VENGALAM DESOM, QUILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA STATE. BY ADV. SRI.T.R.RAVI FOR R1TO 7 SRI.P.S.MURALI FOR R1 TO 7 SRI.T.R.RAVI FOR R8 SRI.P.S.MURALI FOR R8 SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS FOR ADDL.R. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ C. M. Appl. No.734 of 2004 & R. S. A. No.1188 of 2004 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT This is an application filed by the appellant to condone the delay of 1191 days in filing the regular second appeal. In the affidavit filed by him explaining the delay his case is that the judgment impugned was passed by the first appellate court on 07/03/01; that copy application was made on 09/03/01; that stamp papers were called for on 11/04/01 and were produced on the same day and copy was ready on 24/04/01 and was received on the same day and that the appeal ought to have been filed on or before 24/07/01 but that after receiving copy of judgment, he was laid up due to heart and renal ailments and was completely bedridden and was immobilised and therefore, he could not meet his advocate and R. S. A. No.1188 of 2004 -2- take steps for filing the appeal and thus, a delay of 1191 days has been caused in filing the appeal which according to him is neither wilful nor intentional. 2. When the matter came up for consideration on 08/04/08, this Court observed in the order that though petition is filed to condone the delay of 1191 days in filing the appeal alleging illness of the appellant who is no more, no material was placed to show the illness and that when that aspect was pointed out, counsel appearing for the petitioner sought for time and that was granted and still no material at all is placed supporting the case of illness. Thereupon, the counsel for the legal heirs of the appellant sought for further time and the appeal is posted to this day as a last chance. Even today, no iota of evidence was produced to substantiate the case of illness of the original appellant. The R. S. A. No.1188 of 2004 -3- legal heirs of the appellant are not entitled to render any explanation other than what the appellant has sworn in his affidavit in support of the C.M. Application. The long delay of 1191 days cannot be condoned on the mere averment that the appellant was laid up. I am not of the view that there is any just and sufficient cause to condone the delay of as much as 1191 days so as to disturb the rights that have accrued to the respondents. 3. In the result, refusing to condone the delay of 1191 days in filing the appeal, I dismiss this C.M. Application No.734/04. Consequently, the appeal and the applications for impleadment all stand dismissed. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-