Kerala High Court
Hameed Kutty Abdul Sathar vs Jagadamma Prasannakumari on 20 July, 2021
RSA No.926/2020 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR
Tuesday, the 20th day of July 2021 / 29th Ashadha, 1943
CM.APPL.NO.2/2020 IN RSA NO. 926 OF 2020
AS 11/2016 OF SUB COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM
OS.NO.18/2012 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT,KARUNAGAPPALLY.
PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS:
1. HAMEED KUTTY ABDUL SATHAR, AGED 43, S/O. (LATE) HAMEED KUTTY,
VATTATHARAYIL VEEDU, MUZHANGODI MURI, KALLELIBHAGOM VILLAGE, KOLLAM
DISTRICT-690 519.
2. HAMEED KUTTY ARIFABEEVI, AGED 66, W/O.(LATE) HAMEED KUTTY,
VATTATHARAYIL VEEDU, MUZHANGODI MURI, KALLELIBHAGOM VILLAGE, KOLLAM
DISTRICT-690 519.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1. JAGADAMMA PRASANNAKUMARI, AGED 55, VELANTE VADAKKATHIL VEEDU,
MUZHANGODI MURI, KALLELIBHAGOM VILLAGE, KALLELIBHAGOM P.O., KOLLAM
DISTRICT-690 519.
2. BHARATHIYAMMA RADHAMMA PILLAI, AGED 61, VELANTE VADAKKATHIL
VEEDU, MUZHANGODI MURI, KALLELIBHAGOM VILLAGE, KALLELIBHAGOM P.O., KOLLAM
DISTRICT-690 519.
3. CHELLAPPAN PILLAI MOHANAN PILLAI, AGED 58, VELANTE VADAKKATHIL
VEEDU, MUZHANGODI MURI, KALLELIBHAGOM VILLAGE, KALLELIBHAGOM P.O., KOLLAM
DISTRICT-690 519.
4. MINI, AGED 46,D/O. SANTHAMMA, W/O. CHANDRADAS, THOOLIKA VEEDU,
MUZHANGODI MURI, KALLELIBHAGOM VILLAGE, KALLEBHAGOM P.O., KOLLAM
DISTRICT-690 519.
5. THOOLIKA CHANDRADAS,AGED 22, THOOLIKA VEEDU, MUZHANGODI MURI,
KALLELIBHAGOM VILLAGE, KALLEBHAGOM P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT-690 519.
6. THUSHAR, AGED 17 (MINOR), THOOLIKA VEEDU, MUZHANGODI MURI,
KALLELIBHAGOM VILLAGE, KALLEBHAGOM P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT-690 519.
(REPRESENTED BY ADDL. 5TH RESPONDENT AS NEXT FRIEND).
7. ANANDAVALLY, AGED 78,D/O. KALYANI, THOOLIKA VEEDU, MUZHANGODI
MURI, KALLELIBHAGOM VILLAGE, KALLEBHAGOM P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT-690 519
RSA No.926/2020 2/5
Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the
affidavit filed therewith the High Court be pleased to condone the delay
of 394 days in filing the above Regular Second Appeal.
This Application coming on for orders upon perusing the application
and the affidavit filed in support thereof, and upon hearing the arguments
of SMT..V.H.JASMINE, SRI.JESWIN P.VARGHESE, SMT.RAHMATH C.A., Advocates
for the petitioners and of SRI.K.S.BHARATHAN, SRI.ALPHIN ANTONY,
SRI.AADITHYAN S.MANNALI, SRI.VISAKH ANTONY, SRI.ABEL ANTONY, SRI.CHRISTINE
MATHEW, SHRI.ADHEEP VIJAY, Advocates for the respondents, the court passed
the following:
RSA No.926/2020 3/5
N. ANIL KUMAR, J.
-----------------------------------------
C.M.Appl. No. 2 of 2020
in
RSA No. 926 of 2020
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of July, 2021
ORDER
This is an application to condone the delay of
394 days in filing the appeal.
2. The first appellate court rendered the
judgment on 10.06.2019. The certified copy of
the judgment was received on 08.07.2019. In
the affidavit filed in support of the
application, the 2nd petitioner/2nd appellant
would swear that the delay caused initially
for the reason that the 2nd petitioner/2nd
appellant was unable to contact the office of
the learned counsel because she was undergoing
treatment for backache and advised to take
rest. It is further stated that thereafter,
due to the outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic, she
RSA No.926/2020 4/5
RSA No. 926 of 2020
..2..
was unable to meet her counsel. In the
process, it is submitted that, there occurred
a delay of 394 days in filing the appeal.
3. The respondents filed objection stating that
Covid-19 pandemic has no connection,
whatsoever, with the circumstances involved
and the delay is not properly explained.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioners/appellants and the learned counsel
for the respondents.
5. In the matter of delay, it is just and proper
to take a lenient view rather than dismissing
an application for condoning the delay on
technical grounds. Hence, the delay of 394
days in filing the above appeal stands
condoned on deposit of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one
thousand only) as costs to the High Court
Legal Services Committee within 15 days from
the date of this order.
6. In case, the costs is deposited as ordered
RSA No.926/2020 5/5
RSA No. 926 of 2020
..3..
hereinabove and the receipt is produced, the
Registry is directed to post the appeal for
admission.
This C.M.Appl. is allowed accordingly.
Sd/-
N. ANIL KUMAR
JUDGE
bka/20.07.2021
20-07-2021 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
