IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2008 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1930 RSA.No. 104 of 2005 --------------------------------- AS.90/2000 of ADDL.D.C. & ADDL.MACT, ALAPPUZHA. OS.467/1996 of PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: 1. N.P.VIDYANANDAN, S/O. PADMANABHAN, COMPANY EMPLOYEE, SOORYA JYOTHIS, PUNNAPRA MURI, PUNNAPRA VILLAGE. 2. N.GURUPRASAD S/O. NARAYANAN, GOVT.SERVENT, KOCHUKOOLIPARAMBU, PARAVOOR MURI, PUNNAPRA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS 1 & 2: 1. ARAVUKAD KOMARATHUSSERI KUDUMBAYOGAM REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT T.V.THYAGARAJAN, S/O. VAIKUNTA PANICKER, AGRICULTURIST, NEDIYANGANATTU, PARAVOOR MURI, PUNNAPRA VILLAGE. 2. T.V.THYAGARAJAN S/O. VAIKUNTA PANICKER, AGRICULTURIST, NEDIYANGANATTU, PARAVOOR MURI, PUNNAPRA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY FOR R1 & R2 SMT.N.SANTHA FOR R1 & R2 SRI.K.A.BALAN FOR R1 & R2 SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO FOR R1 & R2 THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. --------------------------- C.M.ApplNo.79 of 2005 in R.S.A.No.104 of 2005 --------------------------- JUDGMENT This is an application for condonation of delay of 918 days in filing the appeal. The decree and judgment impugned was passed on 31.1.2002 and the appeal is filed only on 27.1.2005, after almost three years. Even the copy application was made only on 26.3.2004. Though the copy was received on 17.6.2004, inordinate delay is there even thereafter, as the appeal is filed only on 27.1.2005. 2. The explanations offered by the first appellant in the affidavit filed by her in support of the application are that the judgment was pronounced on 31.1.2002; that their counsel did not inform them about the judgment; that only in March 2004 they came to understand that the trial court judgment was revised by the first appellate court; that then they approached the Clerk attached to the RSA 104/05 2 office of the Lawyer and the Clerk thereupon informed that since they were set ex parte by the trial court, he was under the impression that they are not interested in prosecuting the appeal; that thereupon they got back the files from the Clerk; that on 26.3.2004 he himself applied for a certified copy of the judgment and received the copy on 17.6.2004, but the decree of the trial court was collected by him only on 20.12.2004, though the date fixed for appearance and to receive the copy was 25.10.2004 and that thus, the delay is occasioned and that there is no wilful negligence or laches on the part of the appellants. 3. The very fact that the fact of disposal of the appeal by the court below on 31.1.2002 came to their knowledge only in March 2004 shows that they were not making any enquiries at all with respect to their case to the counsel in the court below and the reasons explaining the delay accusing the Lawyer and the Clerk of the court below are made RSA 104/05 3 behind their back. It is to be noted that on expiry of the time prescribed under the Limitation Act, right accrues to the parties, who have won the case in the court below and that cannot lightly be disturbed and interfered with by condoning such inordinate delay, favouring a party who was callous and have shown culpable neglect in the matter of prosecuting their case. There is, absolutely, no just and sufficient cause for condonation of delay of as much as 948 days in preferring the appeal. This application, in the circumstances, is dismissed, refusing to condone the delay of 948 days in filing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed. 30th May, 2008 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv