IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2009 / 12TH SRAVANA 1931 FAO.No. 30 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19/09/2008 IN IA.747/2007 IN OS.69/2004 of SUB COURT, NEDUMANGAD APPELLANTS/PETIONERS/DEFENDANTS -------------------------------------------- 1. K.NARAYANAN, RAJU BHAVAN, SPACE NAGAR CHEKKALAMUKKU, SREEKARIYAM P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. AYSHA NARAYANAN, W/O.NARAYANAN, RAJU BHAVAN, SPACE NAGAR, CHEKKALAMUKKU, SREEKARIYAM P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.DINESH RESPONDENTS: PLAINTIFF & 3RD RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------- 1. THOMSON NADAR, RAJU BHAVAN, COMPANY MUKKU,VELLANAD P.O.REP.BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER B.LISSY. 2. RAJESH, S/O.NARAYANAN, RAJU BHAVAN, SPACE NAGAR, CHEKKALAMUKKU,SREEKARIYAM P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN FOR R1 SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR FOR R1 THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = F.A.O. NO. 30 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2009. J U D G M E N T Raman, J. This is an appeal against an order dismissing the petition to set aside the exparte decree passed against the appellants. Since there was a delay of 1044 days caused in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree, the appellants filed an application to condone the said delay. The reason put forth for the delay in the affidavit was that the first appellant/first petitioner was suffering from glaucoma and his wife, the second appellant was bed ridden due to paralysis. But except to throw a medical certificate, the first appellant did not mount the box to give evidence nor the doctor was examined. In such circumstances, the court below found that in the absence of any appreciable evidence in support of the reason put forth by the first appellant for condoning the delay, the petition is devoid of merit. 2. We have gone through the records and also seen the judgment. The delay is of 1044 days. According to the first F.A.O. 30/2009 2 appellant, he was suffering from glaucoma. But he has no case that he is totally blind to incapacitate or appear in court. Further, this is a progressive disease and when the appellant himself came later with a petition to condone the delay, how can it be said that the delay is attributable to such reasons? He did not mount the box and the doctor was not examined in the case. Therefore, it is not possible to find fault with the court below in dismissing the application. We find no ground to interfere with the order passed by the court below. The appeal is dismissed. P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. KNC/-