IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2008 / 24TH ASHADHA 1930 RSA.No.599 of 2008 (D) ---------------------------- AS.88/2002 of ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC) FAST TRACK COURT-III, PATHANAMTHITTA OS.116/2000 of MUNSIFF COURT, RANNY .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF ------------------------------------------- SAJIKUMAR, S/O.RAMANATHA PILLAI, KUMARAMPEROOR, VADAKKEKARA MURI, VADASSERIKARA VILLAGE, RANNY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY SRI.C.R.VIJAYAN NAIR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS ----------------------------------------------------- 1. PONNACHAN, AGED 32 YEARS, PALLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUMARAMPEROOR, VADAKKEKARA, VADASSERIKARA VILLAGE, RANNY TALUK. 2. SARASAMMA, AGED 32 YEARS, VALIYAKALAYIL HOUSE, KUMARAMPEROOR, VADAKKEKARA MURI, VADASSERIKARA VILLAGE, RANNY TALUK. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ C. M. Application No.508 of 2008 & R. S. A. No.599 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT This is an application filed to condone the delay of 61 days in filing the R.S.A. The judgment appealed against is one delivered on 29/01/08. Copy thereof was applied for on 17/06/08 after about five months. Stamp papers called for on 21/06/08 were produced on 23/06/08 and judgment was taken delivery of on 28/06/08 though 27/06/08 was fixed as the date to appear and receive copy. 2. This appeal arises out of a suit for injunction which was concurrently dismissed by the courts below. In the affidavit filed by the appellant in support of the application for condonation of delay, it is stated that the judgment was passed on 29/01/08 though the decree was drawn up only on 04/04/08. Copy of R. S. A. No.599 of 2008 -2- decree is not produced and as per the amended Civil Procedure Code production of copy of decree of the first appellate court is not mandatory either. There is therefore, no meaning in saying that the decree was drawn up only on 04/04/08. The further allegation is that the appeal should have been filed on or before 27/04/08, but when he got intimation about the passing of the judgment in A.S.88/02, he was completely laid up due to Chickun Guniya and after his health condition improved, he arranged for obtaining certified copy of the judgment and the same was received on 28/06/08 and thus, there occurred a delay of 61 days in filing the appeal and that is not wilful. 3. Though the averment is to the effect that when the appellant got intimation about passing of judgment in A.S.88/02 he was completely laid up due to Chickun Guniya, R. S. A. No.599 of 2008 -3- there is no mention as to when he did receive intimation about passing of judgment in A.S.88/02. There is also no mention as to the period during which he was bedridden on account of the Chickun Guniya. There is also no mention as to when his health condition improved and when he contacted his lawyer and made arrangements for obtaining certified copy of the judgment. On such bald and vague averments without disclosing true facts the appellant cannot expect to get the delay condoned when the delay is as much as 61 days. To show leniency to the appellant and to condone the delay is to do disfavour and harm to the respondents to whom rights have accrued consequent on the decree appealed against having become final for reason of not filing the appeal within the time prescribed by the law of limitation. Unless just and sufficient cause is made out to convince the court that R. S. A. No.599 of 2008 -4- there are sufficient reasons to condone the delay, the delay cannot be condoned as that is not the normal rule. In the circumstances, refusing to condone the delay of as much as 61 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/-