IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 27TH JUNE 2008 / 6TH ASHADHA 1930 RFA.No. 198 of 2008() --------------------- OS.77/2000 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, AYOORPADOM P.O., THRIKARIYOOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.R.LAKSHMINARAYANAN THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: RFA.No. 198 of 2008() ORDER ON I.A.NO.1477/2008 IN R.F.A.No.198/2008 DISMISSED. SD/-P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE SD/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE 27/06/2008. \\TRUE COPY// P.R.RAMAN & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C.M.Appln. No.708/2008 and R.F.A.No.198 of 2008-B ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Dated this the 27th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. This is an application for condonation of delay of 392 in filing the appeal. The appeal arises from the judgment and decree in O.S.No.77/2000 of the Sub Court, Moovattupuzha. The judgment therein was pronounced on 15/11/2006. The application for the copy was filed only on 23/01/2008 after 14 months thereof. It is stated that the delay occurred due to the fact that the file was misplaced from the Government Pleader's office. The deponent of the affidavit has not produced any supporting evidence for the said averment. The copy was also received on 05/02/2008. Thereafter, the reason for delay in filing the appeal is stated to be due to the pressure of work of the Government Pleader. These aspects are also not supported by any communication from the Government Pleader or any affidavit on his part or on his behalf. Apart from that, the application for copy could have been filed within the specified time even without waiting for the file. Therefore, we are of the view that there is no proper and sufficient explanation for the delay in applying for copy. As already noticed, no convincing C.M.Appln. No.708/2008 and R.F.A.No.198 of 2008-B -:2:- evidence was also produced to substantiate the averments in the affidavit. 2. The suit itself is filed by a contractor for recovery of damages for the construction works including the extra work undertaken by him. The court below, after detailed assessment of the evidence in the case, has granted a decree in his favour. The fact that the plaintiff was the contractor and the work was done by him has also not been disputed. The additional works undertaken by him has been accepted by the Government also. Considering all these facts, we find that there is no merit in the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and, hence, the application is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the application for condonation of delay, the appeal is also dismissed. P.R.RAMAN, Judge T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Judge ms