Kerala High Court
Uralungal Labour Contract ... vs Peruli Karthiyayani Amma on 3 February, 2025
C.M.APPLN.NO.1 OF 2022 IN RSA NO. 445 OF 2022
&
RSA NO. 445 OF 2022 1
2025:KER:8484
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 14TH MAGHA, 1946
RSA NO. 445 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.02.2014 IN AS NO.152 OF
2012 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT - II, KOZHIKODE
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.07.2012 IN OS NO.576 OF 2006
OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT -I, KOZHIKODE
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT/SUPPLEMENTAL DEFENDANT NO.3:
URALUNGAL LABOUR CONTRACT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.
URALUNGAL AMSOM AND DESOM, P.O.MADAPPALLY COLLEGE,
VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN 673 308
BY ADVS.
M.SASINDRAN
SATHEESHAN ALAKKADAN
S.SHYAM KUMAR
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS AND RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2/PLAINTIFFS NOS.1 AND 2
AND DEFENDANTS NOS.1 AND 2:
1. PERULI KARTHIYAYANI AMMA, AGED 70 YEARS,
D/O. CHERIYAMMAKUTTY AMMA, RESIDING AT EDACHERY,
THIRUVANGUR AMSOM DESOM,KOYILANDY TALUK, PIN 673 305
2. SREEJA, AGED 45 YEARS, D/O. KARTHIYAYANI AMMA, RESIDING
AT EDACHERY, THIRUVANGUR AMSOM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK,
PIN 673 305.
C.M.APPLN.NO.1 OF 2022 IN RSA NO. 445 OF 2022
&
RSA NO. 445 OF 2022 2
2025:KER:8484
3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT
COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE,
PIN 673 004.
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD (ROADS), CIVIL STATION,
KOZHIKODE, PIN 673 020.
BY ADVS.
MOHANKUMAR P T
RAM MOHAN(K/2812/2023)
BHAVANA J. MENON(K/003202/2023)
DENNY DEVASSY SR.G.P. FOR R3 &4
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.02.2025,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
C.M.APPLN.NO.1 OF 2022 IN RSA NO. 445 OF 2022
&
RSA NO. 445 OF 2022 3
2025:KER:8484
JUDGMENT
C.M.Appln.No.1 of 2022:
1. This Application is filed to condone the delay of 2807 days in
filing the appeal. The said Application is strongly opposed by
the learned counsel for the first and second respondents by
filing a Counter Affidavit.
2. I heard the learned counsel for the appellant Sri. Satheesan
Alakkadan, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2
Sri.P.T.Mohankumar and the learned Senior Government
Pleader for respondent Nos.3 & 4 Sri. Denny Devassy.
3. It is seen that the first appellate court judgment was passed on
28.02.2014. This appeal was filed on 24.06.2022. It is seen that
the application for the certified copy of the first appellate court
judgment was filed only on 16.3.2022.
4. The reason for the delay stated in the affidavit in support of
the application is that the counsel who was engaged by the
appellant before the first appellate court did not inform the
progress of the case and the dismissal of the case to the
appellant in time. The appellant came to know about the
C.M.APPLN.NO.1 OF 2022 IN RSA NO. 445 OF 2022
&
2025:KER:8484
dismissal of the appeal on 11.3.2022 when the counsel at the
first appellate court informed the appellant that the advocate
commissioner appointed in the case was going to inspect the
plaint schedule property on 16.3.2022 and that the presence of
the appellant was necessary at the plaint schedule property.
On getting further information from the counsel, the appellant
came to know that the appeal filed by the respondent was
allowed by the first appellate court, directing the appellant to
construct a retaining wall to protect the property from land
sliding. It is stated that the counsel for the appellant had
instructed the advocate clerk to intimate about the disposal of
the appeal and the counsel was under the belief that the clerk
had informed the same to the appellant.
5. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the E.P. was filed in the
year 2017. The other allegations regarding the absence of
intimation from the counsel etc. were denied in the counter
affidavit. Learned Counsel for the contesting respondent
contended that the applicant was appearing and defending the
E.P., and hence, the appellant could not be heard to say that it
C.M.APPLN.NO.1 OF 2022 IN RSA NO. 445 OF 2022
&
2025:KER:8484
did not have knowledge about the first appellate court
judgment in time.
6. In the recent decision Nitin Mahadeo Jawale v. Bhaskar
Mahadeo Mutke [2024 KHC OnLine 6660], the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has deprecated the growing tendency of the
part of the litigants in throwing the entire blame on the head of
the advocate, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made a
categorical finding that 'even if we assume for a moment that
the concerned lawyer was careless or negligent, this, by
itself, cannot be a ground to condone long and inordinate
delay as the litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of his own
rights and is expected to be equally vigilant about the
judicial proceedings pending in the court initiated at his
instance. The litigant, therefore, should not be permitted to
throw the entire blame on the head of the advocate and
thereby disown him at any time and seek relief'. In view of
the above dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the appellant
shall not be permitted to put the blame on the counsel who was
C.M.APPLN.NO.1 OF 2022 IN RSA NO. 445 OF 2022
&
2025:KER:8484
appearing for them in the First Appellate Court.
7. In this case, the delay is inordinate, amounting to 2807 days in
filing the appeal. When the case is entrusted with the counsel,
the appellant also has a duty to verify the status of the case. It
is clear from the averments in the affidavit that the applicant
did not enquire about the appeal for the long period from
28.2.2014 to 16.3.2022. There are clear laches and negligence
on the part of the appellant.
8. It is also stated in the affidavit that the appellant was advised
by the counsel that there would not be any change in the
judgment of the trial court, and most probably, the appeal
would be dismissed. The appellant is a well-established
Cooperative Society doing extensive contract works. It is
difficult to believe that the appellant believed the said
assurance given by the counsel. The applicant has not shown
sufficient cause for the long delay of 2807 days in filing the
appeal to the satisfaction of the court. Accordingly, I do not find
any ground or reason to condone the delay. Hence, the
C.M.Appln.No.1 of 2022 is dismissed.
C.M.APPLN.NO.1 OF 2022 IN RSA NO. 445 OF 2022
&
2025:KER:8484
9. Consequent to the dismissal of C.M.Appln.No.1 of 2022, the
Appeal is also dismissed.
Sd/-
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
JUDGE
Shg/xx
