IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2008 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1930 RSA.No. 1063 of 2007 ----------------------------------- AS.201/2000 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, N.PARAVUR OS.476/1995 of MUNSIFF COURT, N.PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/ADDL.2ND DEFNT: MURALI, AGED 40, S/O. SEETHANKAN, THAIVAPPUPARAMBIL, CHARAKKATTU KARA, MOOTHAKUNNAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.PRADEEP KUMAR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF: 1. OUSO, S/O. VAREETH,ELANJIKKAL HOUSE, CHARAKKATTU KARA, MOOTHAKUNNAM VILLAGE. 2. CLEETUS, S/O. OUSO, -DO- -DO-. (It is recorded at the risk of the appellant that the first respondent died and that there are no legal heirs to be impleaded vide order dt. 6.3.08 in CMA 799/07) BY ADV. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY FOR R2 THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. --------------------------- C.M.Appl.No.799 of 2oo7 & R.S.A.No.1063 of 2007 --------------------------- JUDGMENT This is an application for condonation of delay of 140 days in filing the appeal. It is seen from the judgment under appeal that the judgment was pronounced on 13.11.2006; that copy application was made on 16.11.2006; that the stamp papers were called for on 20.2.2007 and produced on 23.2.2007 and that though the copy was ready and 27.3.2007 was fixed as the date to appear and receive the copy, copy was taken delivery of only on 3.4.2007. 2. There is no mention at all in the affidavit with respect to those details. The only averment available in the affidavit filed in support of this application is that the appeal ought to have been filed on or before 27.6.2007, but, that at the time of passing of the judgment, the petitioner/ appellant was not in station, as he was engaged at Bangalore for business purpose and he reached here RSA 1063/07 2 only on 30.10.2007 and therefore, there is no wilful laches on his part in having filed the appeal only on 7.11.2007. 3. The averments in the affidavit are made in a very casual manner. It appears that had he continued at Bangalore for another 2-3 years, he could have filed the very same application, specifying the date on which he arrived in Kerala. There is no mention as to what prevented him from coming over and giving instructions to file appeal in time. If at all he wants to file an appeal and wants to have his appeal considered he has to be vigilant and the time prescribed under the Limitation Act is not dependent on the petitioner/appellant, coming over here from Bangalore. There is absolutely no justifiable reason stated to condone the delay of as much as 140 days, disturbing the valuable rights accrued on the respondents. RSA 1063/07 3 This application, in the circumstances, is dismissed, refusing to condone the delay of as much as 140 days in filing the appeal. Consequently, the Regular Second Appeal also stands dismissed. 27th May, 2008 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv