Kerala High Court
C.D.John vs Satheesan S on 14 November, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
Thursday, the 14th day of November 2024 / 23rd Karthika, 1946
CM.APPL.NO.1/2020 IN RSA NO. 766 OF 2020
OS 199/2011 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT , KOTTAYAM
AS 44/2013 OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT,KOTTAYAM
PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS:
1. C.D.JOHN, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.DEVASIA CHACKO, RESIDING AT CHERUVIL
HOUSE, PAMPADY, POTHENPURAM P.O., PAMPADY VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT
2. C.D.CHACKO, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.DEVASIA CHACKO, RESIDING AT CHERUVIL
HOUSE, PAMPADY, POTHENPURAM P.O., PAMPADY VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT
3. C.D.MATHAI, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.DEVASIA CHACKO, RESIDING AT CHERUVIL
HOUSE, PAMPADY, POTHENPURAM P.O., PAMPADY VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1. SATHEESAN S., S/O.SATHIYAVARTHAN, RESIDING AT KUNNEPARAMBIL HOUSE,
NEDUMKANDOM PANCHAYAT, KOMBAYAR KARA, PARATHODU VILLAGE,
UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT -685 571
2. SANGAMITHRA, W/O.SATHEESHAN, RESIDING AT KUNNEPARAMBIL HOUSE,
NEDUMKANDOM PANCHAYAT, KOMBAYAR KARA, PARATHODU VILLAGE,
UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 571.(DIED) LHRS IMPLEADED
3. KOTTAYAM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.NO.421 REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,
KOTTAYAM URBAN BANK LTD. KOTTAYAM -686 001
4. THE SPECIAL SALE OFFICER KOTTAYAM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.
KOTTAYAM -686 001
5. PAMPADY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK REP. BY SECRETARY, PAMPADY SERVICE
CO-OPERATIVE BANK, PAMPADY-686 502
6. VINAYACHANDRAN AGED 27, S/O. SATHEESAN RESIDING AT KUNNEPARAMBIL
HOUSE, NEDUMKANDAM PANCHAYAT, KOMBAYAR KARA, PARATHODE VILLAGE,
UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685571
7. VANDITHAN AGED 21,S/O.SATHEESAN, RESIDING AT KUNNEPARAMBIL HOUSE,
NEDUMKANDAM PANCHAYAT,KOMBAYAR KARA, PARATHODE VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA
TALUK,IDUKKI DISTRICT-685571. (THE LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED 2ND
RESPONDENT ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDL.RESPONDENTS 6 AND 7 AS PER ORDER
DATED 06.11.2024 IN IA.NO.4/2024)
Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the
affidavit filed therewith the High Court be pleased to condone the delay
of 714 days occurred in filing the above Regular Second appeal, so as to
secure the ends of justice.
This Application coming on for orders upon perusing the application
and the affidavit filed in support thereof, and upon hearing the arguments
of M/S.LIJI J.VADAKKEDOM,ATHUL V. VADAKKEDOM Advocates for the petitioners
and of M/S.SURIN GEORGE IPE,Advocate for Respondent 3 and M/S V.K.PRASAD,
MUSTHAHAZIN K. MOHAMMED, JOSNA.C.F, Advocates for Respondent 5, the court
passed the following:
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM, J.
=====================
RSA No. 766 of 2020
================
Dated this the 14th day of November, 2024
============================
ORDER
1. The defendants 2 to 4 are the appellants. This is an
application to condone the delay of 714 days in filing this
Regular Second Appeal. Even though the respondents were
served, nobody has filed any Counter Affidavit opposing the
prayers in the application.
2. Learned Counsel cited the decision of this Court in Rajeela
V.Ahammed Saleeq.S.K 2023(1) KLT 297 to substantiate
that the period from 15/03/2020 to 28/02/2022 is liable to be
excluded from the limitation period account of Covid
pandemic. The leaned counsel for the appellant submitted
that, even though the delay is shown as 714 days, the actual
delay would be only 474 days as the appellants are entitled to
exclude the period from 15/3/2020 to 2/11/2020, the day on
which the appeal was filed.
3. On going through the Affidavit in support of the Application I
find that the impugned judgment is dated 18/08/2018 and the
application for certified copy was filed only on 07/11/2019.
The applicant has not stated any explanation for the delay for
submitting an application for certified copy. The delay for
applying certified copy of the judgment is the major part of the
delay involved in this matter. I do not find any sufficient cause
disclosed in the Affidavit to condone the delay. I find from that
there are divergent findings between the Trial Court as well as
the First Appellate Court. The Trial Court dismissed the suit
where as on appeal filed by the plaintiff, the suit was decreed.
Even though there is no convincing explanation for the delay,
in order to consider the matter on merits in the interest of
justice, I condone the delay in filing the appeal on payment of
a cost of Rs.2,000/- to KELSA within a period of ten days.
4. Post on 09/12/2024.
Sd/-
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
JUDGE
sms
14-11-2024 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
