IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2009 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1931 RSA.No.909 of 2008 (G) ---------------------------- AS. NOS.289/06 & 290/2006 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, N.PARAVUR OS.492/1994 of MUNSIFF COURT, N. PARAVUR .................... APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS: -------------------------------------------------- 1. SAROJINI, W/O.SUBRAN, MURIKKUMTHARA, CHERAI MURI, PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE. 2. SUBRAN, S/O.CHATHAN, MURIKKUMTHARA, CHERAI MURI, PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN PUTHENVEETTIL RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF: ------------------------------------------------ NATESAN, S/O.PANDARI, THAITHARAN NIKATHIL, CHERAI MURI, PALLIPURAM VILLAGE. ADV. SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI. NEELAKNDAN.P.M THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ C. M. Application No.719 of 2008 & R. S. A. No.909 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT C. M. Application No.719 of 2008 is an application seeking for condonation of delay of 255 days in filing this RSA. Counsel for the appellants/petitioners is absent and there is no representation on his behalf. Heard the counsel for the respondent who has filed counter objecting to the delay being condoned. 2. The judgment under appeal is dt.16/11/07. On the same day, copy application was filed. Stamp papers called for on 04/12/07 were produced on 05/12/07. Date fixed to appear to receive copy was 14/12/07, but copy was taken delivery of only on 01/01/08 and this RSA is filed only on 30/09/08 after nine months of taking delivery of copy of judgment appealed against. R. S. A. No.909 of 2008 -2- 3. The reasons stated for the delay in the affidavit accompanying the C.M. Application is that appellants 1 and 2 who are wife and husband are aged persons; that the first appellant is continuously under treatment for paralysis and both of them were not in a position to arrange for the RSA being filed consulting the lawyer within the stipulated period as they were suffering from old age problems as well, and the second appellant was advised to take rest and not to travel long distances and therefore, the RSA which ought to have been filed on or before 16/01/08 could be filed only on 30/09/08. 4. The reasons stated for condonation of delay are not substantiated by production of any record whatsoever. As far as the second appellant/husband is concerned, he states only that he also was suffering from old age R. S. A. No.909 of 2008 -3- problems and he was advised to take rest and not to travel long distances. What was his ailment; if at all there was any ailment, how long was he advised to take rest without travelling long distances etc. are not mentioned in the affidavit. If the explanation is to be accepted it tantamounts to saying that he could have waited even for one or two years more because as days go by he becomes older only. There is absolutely no convincing reason assigned to condone the delay of as much as 255 days in filing this RSA. 5. In the result, refusing to condone the delay of as much as 255 days, I dismiss this C.M. Application. RSA.909/08 C.M.Application No.719/08 is dismissed on this day refusing to condone delay of as much as 255 days in filing the RSA. Hence, this RSA R. S. A. No.909 of 2008 -4- is hopelessly barred by limitation and is dismissed. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-