IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2008 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1930 RSA.No.1260 of 2005 (G) ------------------------------ AS.210/2002 of SUBORDINATE COURT, KOZHIKODE OS.734/2000 of ADDL.M.C., KOZHIKODE-I .................... APPELLANT (RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT): ------------------------------------------------- THENELIMALIL ESTHAPPAN, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. ITHAPARI, THENELIMALIL HOUSE, KOODATHAI AMSOM PALONA DESOM, THEYYAPPARA P.O., KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.T.MOHANKUMAR RESPONDENT: (APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF): ------------------------------------------------ OLAPURAKKAL MATHAI, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. YAKOOB, RESIDING AT OLAPURAKKAL HOUSE, KOODATHAI AMSOM, PALONA DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ C. M. Application No.806 of 2005 & R. S. A. No.1260 of 2005 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Counsel for the appellant/petitioner is absent. 2. C.M.Appl. No.806/05 is an application for condonation of delay of 92 days in filing the appeal. The judgment impugned is dated 16/02/05 and the appeal is filed on 21/11/05. Copy application was made on 23/02/05 and date fixed to appear to receive copy was 30/05/05 and it was taken delivery of on 02/06/05, but still appeal is filed only on 21/11/05. The reasons assigned for explaining the delay in the affidavit filed by the appellant in support of the application for condonation of delay are that after collecting the copy of decree and judgment those were misplaced at his residence and could be traced out only on R. S. A. No.1260 of 2005 -2- 19/11/05 and the delay so occasioned was not wilful and was for reasons beyond his control. It is beyond comprehension that the appellant who has received copy of decree and judgment on 02/06/05 alleges that he misplaced the decree and judgment at his residence and that it could be traced out only on 19/11/05. How it so happened that the decree and judgment in the suit received by the appellant was misplaced in his house; why it could not be located for such a long time till 19/11/05 etc. are matters which are not even attempted to be explained by the appellant. Without assigning any valid reason, the delay cannot be condoned lightly especially when that upsets the finality of the judgment passed in favour of the respondent to whom rights have accrued for reason of finality obtained by the decree in his favour. In the instant case, there is no valid and convincing reason which R. S. A. No.1260 of 2005 -3- can be considered as just and sufficient cause to condone the delay of as much as 92 days in filing the appeal. 3. In the result, the delay of 92 days sought for to be condoned is not liable to be condoned. The C.M. Application is hence, dismissed. Consequently, the R.S.A also stands dismissed. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-