IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2008 / 9TH ASHADHA 1930 RSA.No.504 of 2008 (B) ---------------------------- AS.74/2005 of I ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR OS.554/2001 of ADDL.SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS 3 TO 6, 9 & 10/PLAINTIFFS ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. JANAKI W/O PARAMESWARAN, PADINJAREPURAKKAL HOUSE, MATTATHUR KARA, MATTATHUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, KODAKARA, THRISSUR. 2. SHOBANA, D/O PARAMESWARAN, PADINJAREPURAKKAL HOUSE, MATTATHUR KARA, MATTATHUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, KODAKARA, THRISSUR. 3. ANANDAM, D/O PARAMESWARAN, PADINJAREPURAKKAL HOUSE, MATTATHUR KARA MATTATHUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, KODAKARA, THRISSUR. 4. VIJAYAN, S/O.PARAMESWARAN, PADINJAREPURAKKAL HOUSE, MATTATHUR KARA MATTATHUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, KODAKARA, THRISSUR. 5. KISHORE KUMAR,S/O LATE GOPALAN, PADINJAREPURAKKAL HOUSE, C/O KARUVARAKOTTIL HOUSE, PATTIKKAD P.O., SANTHAPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN 679 325. RSA.No.504 of 2008 (B) -2- 6. RADHIKA, D/O LATE GOPALAN, PADINJAREPURAKKAL HOUSE, C/O KARUVARAKOTTIL HOUSE, PATTIKKAD P.O., SANTHAPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN 679 325. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE K.PAUL SRI.JUBYRAJ.A.P RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS 2, 7 AND 8 IN THE LOWER APPELLATE COURT AND RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. AMMINI, W/O VELAYUDHAN, PADINJAREPURAKKAL HOUSE, MATTATHUR KARA, MATTATHUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,KODAKARA, THRISSUR. 2. ASOKAN,S/O VELAYUDHAN, PADINJAREPURAKKAL HOUSE, MATTATHUR KARA, MATTATHUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,KODAKARA, THRISSUR. 3. KAMALAM,D/O.VELAYUDHAN,PADINJAREPURAKKAL HOUSE,MATTATHUR KARA, MATTATHUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,KODAKARA THRISSUR. 4. PADMAVATHY, W/O VADAKKEDATH BALAN, PADINJAREPURAKKAL HOUSE,MATTATHUR KARA, MATTATHUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,KODAKARA,THRISSUR. 5. MURALEEDHARAN, S/O LATE GOPALAN, PADINJAREPURAKKAL HOUSE,MATTATHUR KARA,MATTATHUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,KODAKARA,THRISSUR. 6. PRADEEP KUMAR, S/O LATE GOPALAN, PADINJAREPURAKKAL HOUSE,MATTATHUR KARA,MATTATHUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,KODAKARA,THRISSUR. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ C. M. Application No.429 of 2008 & R. S. A. No.504 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT This is an application filed by the appellants seeking for condonation of delay of as much as 186 days in filing the R.S.A. 2. The judgment under appeal was pronounced on 28/05/07. Copy thereof was applied for on 30/05/07 and stamp papers called for on 06/07/07 were produced on 07/07/07. Though 12/07/07 was fixed as the date to receive copy, copy was taken delivery of only on 18/07/07 and thereafter, this appeal is filed only on 11/04/08. 3. The reasons alleged explaining the delay in the affidavit filed by the fourth appellant along with the C.M. Application is that after obtaining copy of the judgment and decree on 18/07/07 they entrusted the matter R. S. A. No.504 of 2008 -2- to Advocate K.S.Venugopalan to seek legal opinion for preferring a R.S.A before this Court; that unfortunately, at that time his mother/the first appellant was seriously ill and was laid up due to old age diseases; that the mother is now aged 80 years and is staying with him and he is looking after the affairs of his mother; that therefore, he could not go over to the office of the Advocate and enquire about the case for a period of three months; that thereafter, on 19/10/07, he obtained legal opinion from his counsel to prefer a R.S.A before this Court; that on 20/10/07, he entrusted the case file to the present advocate to file the R.S.A; that after studying the case, the present counsel informed him during January, 2008 to bring all the appellants to file vakalath for filing the R.S.A; that though ten persons were arrayed as appellants in the lower appellate court all of R. S. A. No.504 of 2008 -3- them are not available for signing the vakalath for filing the R.S.A. Since some of them are residing at distant places and that the second appellant in the lower appellate court and the fourth respondent herein is now at Bangalore and she informed him that she is ready to join as appellant, but at the same time requested him to wait for some more time for getting assistance of her son for reaching Kochi since she is aged 70 years; that thereafter in April, 2008 when he contacted her son, it was informed that she was laid up due to old age diseases and so she could not come over; that the fifth and sixth appellants herein are now residing at Perinthalmanna in Malappuram district; that the petitioners waited till 10/04/08 for arraying all the appellants in the lower appellate court as appellants in the R.S.A, but however, all efforts made by the petitioners to arraign all R. S. A. No.504 of 2008 -4- the appellants in the lower appellate court as appellants in this appeal was in vain and thus the second appellant in the lower appellate court is arraigned as the fourth respondent and the additional seventh and eighth appellants in the lower appellate court are arrayed as respondents 5 and 6 respectively in the appeal and the appeal is filed on 11/04/08 thereby incurring a delay of 186 days in preferring the R.S.A. 4. It is worthy to note that appellants 5 and 6 were residing at Perinthalmanna in Malappuram district in Kerala state. It is only the second appellant who was residing at Bangalore which is outside Kerala and she is impleaded as the fourth respondent in this R.S.A. Despite all what is alleged, such of the appellants in the court below who was not available in station were made respondents when this R.S.A was filed. This could have R. S. A. No.504 of 2008 -5- been done without causing inordinate delay of 186 days in filing the appeal. It has to be remembered that the law of limitation when once it begins to run, it is not an explanation for the party to say that a few of them were residing outside state or that they were not available to sign the appeal. If at all they want to file an appeal, they have to do it within the time allowed by the law of limitation and if a few of the parties are not available, appeal has to be filed in time arraigning them as respondents and that is the usual practice. In the instant case, the parties who were not available were impleaded as respondents after waiting for 186 days. I am not of the view that the reasons assigned are just and sufficient cause to enable this Court to pass an order condoning the delay of as much as 186 days in filing the appeal. By showing leniency to the appellant, rights R. S. A. No.504 of 2008 -6- which have accrued to the successful party cannot be interfered with as long as there is no just and sufficient cause for the delay. 5. In the result, refusing to condone the delay of as much as 186 days in filing the R.S.A, I dismiss this C.M. Application. Consequently, the R.S.A also stands dismissed. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-