IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2009 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1930 RSA.No. 803 of 2006 --------------------------------- AS.47/1995 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT (ADCHOC)-II, PATHANAMTHITTA OS.132/1982 of M.C., PATHANAMTHITTA .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF: OMANA AMMA, D/O. KUNJUKUTTY AMMA, PUTHENPARAMBILAYA MANNUJNAL VEEDU, MADAMON THEKKEKARA, PERUNADU VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.M.NARENDRA KUMAR SRI.R.SUDHIR SMT.LEENA KRISHNAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: 1. THULASI AMMA, D/O. MANIAMMA, MUKKANNER HOUSE, MADAMON VADAKKEKARA MURI, PERUNADU. (DIED)* 2. SASIDHARAN NAIR, MUKKANNER HOUSE, MADAMON VADAKKEKARA MURI, PERUNADU. 3. BALAN NAIR, DO. DO. 4. BALACHANDRAN NAIR, DO. DO. *It is recorded at the risk of the appellant that R2 to R4 are the LRs of deceased R1 and no other LRs to be impleaded as per order dt. 4.3.09 in RSA. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. -------------------------- R.S.A.No.803 of 2006 & C.M.Appl.No.574 of 2006 -------------------------- JUDGMENT C.M.Appl.No.574/2006 Heard counsel for the appellant. This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 597 days in filing the Regular Second Appeal. The judgment under appeal was pronounced on 12.7.2004. Copy was applied for after eight days, namely, on 21.7.2004. The stamp papers called for on 28.10.2004 were produced only on 1.11.2004, after three days. Though 4.11.2004 was fixed as the date to appear and receive the copy, copy was taken delivery of only on 9.11.2004. This Regular Second Appeal is filed only as late as on 11.9.2006, after one year and ten months. 2. In the affidavit filed by the appellant in support of the C.M. Application, the reason assigned for the delay is that she did not receive any intimation regarding receipt of copy of judgment, though copy was taken delivery of on RSA 803/06 2 9.11.2004 and only in the first week of August 2006 when she went to the office of the counsel, on verification, that it was found that certified copy of the judgment was obtained as early as on 9.11.2004. She further alleges that the clerk attached to the office of her counsel, who was dealing with the case, was dismissed from service long back. There is no mention in the affidavit as to who was the clerk dealing with the case and was dismissed from the office of the Lawyer. There is no supporting evidence from the Lawyer that any negligence in the matter has occurred at his office or that he has dismissed any clerk, who was dealing with the case in the lower appellate court. Such bald allegations cannot furnish sufficient cause to have the delay of as much as 597 days in filing the Regular Second Appeal condoned so as to disrupt the verdict obtained by the respondents in their favour, which has become final. 3. From the averments in the affidavit, it is also evident that the appellant was not making any RSA 803/06 3 enquiries about her case for about two years. It is not for the counsel to go in search of the client and intimate the client as to what she has to do in the matter. Appellant has to make enquiries with the Lawyer at least during reasonable intervals so that such instances will not occur. In the instant case, there is no sufficient reason at all to condone the delay of as much as 597 days in filing the Regular Second Appeal. In the result, I dismiss this C.M. Application. R.S.A.No.803/2006 C.M.Appl.No.574/06 seeking for condonation of delay of as much as 597 days in filing this Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, this Regular Second Appeal is hopelessly barred by limitation and is dismissed. 12th March, 2009 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv