IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2008 / 2ND ASHADHA 1930 RSA.No.54 of 2008 (F) --------------------------- AS.14/2002 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR OS.2279/1988 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT,THRISSUR .................... APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS: ------------------------------------------------ 1. BHARGAVI, W/O. SANKARANKUTTY, PANIKKASSERY HOUSE, CHENNAM DESOM, AMMADAM P.O., PARALAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. SIVARAMAN, S/O. BHARGAVI, PANIKKASSERY HOUSE, CHENNAM DESOM, AMMADAM P.O., PARALAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. SIVANANDAN, S/O. BHARGAVI, PANIKKASSERRY HOUSE, CHENNAM DESOM,AMMADAM P.O., PARALAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS 1, 3 AND 4/DEFENDANTS 1,3 AND 4: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. VIJAYAN, S/O. KOCHUKRISHNAN, PANIKKASSERY HOUSE, CHENNAM DESOM,AMADAM P.O., PARALAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. KARTHIYAYANI, W/O. CHAKKAPPAN, CHULLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHENNAM DESOM, AMADAM P.O., PARALAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT. RSA.No.54 of 2008 (F) -2- 3. GHOSH, S/O. CHAKKAPPAN, CHULLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHENNAM DESOM, AMADAM P.O., PARALAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ C. M. Application No.48 of 2008 & R. S. A. No.54 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT This is an application for condonation of delay of 1056 days in filing the R.S.A. The judgment appealed against is one delivered on 29/10/04; copy thereof was applied for only on 01/06/05 and despite delivery of copy on 18/06/05, this R.S.A is filed only on 15/01/08 after two and a half years. The affidavit filed in support of the application is sworn to by the first appellant in the appeal. It is her case that the copy application was filed only on 13/01/05 after more than two and a half months of delivering the judgment and on her enquiries with her lawyer she was told that the application got delayed because he had a change of his clerk. She further states that moreover, her lawyer is a political R. S. A. No.54 of 2008 -2- activist and he was away in Delhi for such purposes. According to the first appellant she was under the bonafide impression that the appeal is still pending since whenever she contacted her lawyer she was informed that the appeal is pending. She states that she is a lady with no much understanding of these issues, but recently she has come to know that some persons are attempting to measure the property and then she went to her lawyer and found that the appeal had been dismissed long back. According to her, there is no wilful laches or omissions from her side and that the entire issue took place only on account of lack of communication between herself and her lawyer. It is on the above ground that she seeks for condonation of delay of as much as 1056 days in filing the appeal. 2. On carefully going through the averment in the affidavit filed by the first R. S. A. No.54 of 2008 -3- appellant, I see that this is a case where the first appellant or her sons who are the second and third appellants or even their lawyer in the court below did not take any interest at all in properly doing the needful in time to prefer a second appeal. Their laches cannot be a ground to take the respondents to task by condoning the delay of as much as 1056 days in filing the appeal. The rights that have accrued to the respondents by reason of non- filing of the appeal by the defeated party/appellants cannot be interfered with lightly for the wanton neglect on the part of the appellants in prosecuting their case. No reason at all is assigned as to why appellants 2 and 3 who are the sons of the first appellant did not do the needful to prefer appeal in time. I am of the view that there is absolutely no just and sufficient cause to condone the delay of as much as 1056 days in R. S. A. No.54 of 2008 -4- filing the R.S.A. 3. In the result, refusing to condone the delay of as much as 1056 days in filing the appeal, I dismiss this C.M. Application. Consequently, the R.S.A also stands dismissed. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-