IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2008 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1930 RFA.No. 162 of 2008() --------------------- OS.126/2000 of SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS -------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PROJECT CIRCLE, PIRAVOM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER RESPONDENTS: PLAINTIFF ---------------------- P.O.POULOSE, S/O.OUSEPH, CONTRACTOR, PUTHUKUNNATHU HOUSE, AYROORPADOM P.O., THRIKARIYOOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVINGCOME UP FOR CONSIDERATION ON 16/06/2008, ALONG WITH C.M. APPLICATION 612/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.M. APPLN. 612 & R.F.A. 162 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2008. J U D G M E N T Raman, J. C.M. Application 612/2008 is an application for condonation of delay of 335 days in filing the appeal. The application is supported by an affidavit sworn in to by the Executive Engineer, Periyar Valley Irrigation Project Division No1., Perumbavoor. The appeal is filed against the judgment and decree in O.S. 126/2000 on the file of the Sub Court, Muvattupuzha. The judgment in the above said suit was pronounced on 21.12.2006. Copy application was made only on 19.11.2007, nearly 11 months after the judgment. It is stated that the delay occurred due to the fact that the file was misplaced in the Office of the Government Pleader. First of all, the fact as to whether the file was misplaced is not supported by any other evidence. No communication, if any, by the Government Pleader in this behalf nor even an affidavit is filed. Be that it may, we do not find why the file is required for making a copy application. As soon as the clerk attached to the Advocate goes to the section, he could very well know RFA 162/2008 :2: that the judgment is pronounced and the copy application can be made within the specified time. More than that the reasons for not submitting the application for certified copy is not at all explained. No convincing evidence is proved to substantiate this fact. Even after obtaining the copy of the judgment, there is delay in filing the appeal. 2. The suit itself was one for realisation of the amount due to the plaintiff on account of work undertaken by him. The court below, after analysing the evidence in the case, granted a decree. There is no dispute that the plaintiff was not the contractor and the work in respect of which the amount is claimed was not done by him. The additional works done by him was accepted by the Government. Therefore, the dispute is regarding the quantum of the amount payable to him. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, we find no merit in the application for condonation of delay. Hence the application is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the petition for condonation of delay, the appeal is also dismissed. P.R. RAMAN, (JUDGE) T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, (JUDGE) knc/-