IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2009 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1931 RSA.No.1210 of 2008 (B) ------------------------------ AS.145/1999 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT-I,MAVELIKKARA OS.22/1997 of MUNSIFF COURT,CHENGANNUR .................... APPELLANT/FIRST RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF ----------------------------------------------------- KOCHUKUNJU PILLAI NARAYANA PILLAI, MOUTTATHAYA NANDESSERI VEETTIL, ENNAKKAD MURI, ENNAKKAD VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAMADAS RESPONDENTS/2ND APPELLANT & R2 TO R4 IN AS/DEFENDANTS 2 TO 5 IN O.S ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M.R.VASANTHI, F-10B, KANJIPPARA, KSEB COLONY, KALLARKUTTY, IDUKKI FROM MOUTTATH VEETTIL, ENNAKKAD MURI, ENNAKKAD VILLAGE. 2. KERALA STATE REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 3. TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, CHENGANNUR. 4. TALUK SURVEYOR, CHENGANNUR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R2 TO 4 SRI.R.GIREESH VARMA FOR R1 THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ C. M. Application No.944 of 2008 in R. S. A. No.1210 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT C.M.Application No.944 of 2008 is an application seeking for condonation of delay of as much as 615 days in filing the appeal. Condonation of delay is opposed by counsel for the respondents. The judgment and decree under appeal is dt.20/12/05. Application for copy was made on 21/12/05. Stamp papers called for on 08/02/06 were produced on 14/02/06 and copy of judgment and decree was taken delivery of on 16/02/06, but the appeal is filed almost after two years on 21/01/08. 2. In the affidavit filed by the appellant in support of the C.M. Application, it is his case that the appeal ought to have been filed on or before 11/05/06, but due to intervention of some of the close relatives R. S. A. No.1210 of 2008 -2- and friends of the appellant and first respondent, a compromise talk was going on as the appellant and first respondent are relatives and the appellant was also eager to settle the dispute between them, but that because of the adamant stand of the first respondent's father, the compromise did not materialise; that the first respondent has now filed a suit as O.S.375/07 before the Munsiff's Court, Chengannur on 15/12/07 against the appellant for declaration of her title over the plaint schedule property and hence, immediately on receipt of notice in the said suit, this appeal is filed on 21/01/08 and the delay of 615 days caused in filing the appeal, in the circumstances, be condoned. 3. It is too much to say that the appellant who has taken delivery of copy of decree and judgment appealed against on R. S. A. No.1210 of 2008 -3- 16/02/06 waited for one year and eleven months making attempts at settling the matter. If at all there is any scope for settlement, it could only fade away when right of appeal is lost and the explanation offered cannot be swallowed as such to be true. The explanation offered is only a ruse to get the delay condoned. There is no just and sufficient cause to condone the delay of 615 days in filing the appeal on such unbelievable explanations and the reasons stated cannot be accepted as sufficient ground to condone the delay. 4. In the result, refusing to condone the delay of as much as 615 days in filing this appeal, this C.M. Application is dismissed. R.S.A.1210/08 C.M.Application No.944/08 seeking for condonation of delay of as much as 615 days in R. S. A. No.1210 of 2008 -4- filing the RSA is dismissed today. Consequently, this RSA is hopelessly barred by limitation. This RSA is hence, dismissed. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-