High Court allowed appellants I.A. to accept belated documents proving chronic skin disease caused 660-day appellate delay. Impugned dismissal order and appeal judgment remitted to appellate court for fresh disposal on merits.
I.A. No.1033/2013 allowed; impugned order and judgment set aside; appeal remitted to lower appellate court for fresh disposal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL
WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1938
RSA.No. 998 of 2016 ()
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN AS 68/2013 of I ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR DATED 01-08-2014
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OS 138/2008 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, THRISSUR DATED 31-03-2011
APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT.:
P.G JANARDHANAN
S/O. POYYARA GOPALAN, VATANAPILLY VILLAGE & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.V.M.SYAM KUMAR
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF:
S/O. ITHIKKATT MOOKAMIYAMMA, VATANAPPILLY VILLAGE & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680506
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
K. HARILAL, J.
R.S.A. No.998 of 2016
Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2016
J U D G M E N T
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The appellant was the defendant in O.S. No.138/2008 before the Principal Sub Court, Thrissur. The said suit was filed by the respondents herein seeking fixation of boundary and for declaration and injunction. The appellant had filed another suit as O.S. No.866/2002, wherein the respondents were arrayed as defendants. Both suits were tried together and a common judgment was rendered by the Principal Sub Judge on 31.03.2011. The appellant had preferred A.S. No.68/2013. There was a delay of 660 days in filing the said appeal. Hence, I.A. No.1033/2013 was filed seeking condonation of delay.
RSA.998/2016
: 2 :
serious skin affliction, which rendered him bedridden, and was incapable to move out from the house to meet his
lawyer and engage him to prefer the appeal. Immediately upon his recovery, he had taken steps for preferring the appeal and the appeal was filed with a delay of 660 days. But, the court below, without appreciating the cause of delay averred by the appellant in the appeal, dismissed the said I.A. Consequent on the dismissal of I.A. No.1033/2013, the appeal was also dismissed. This Regular Second Appeal is filed challenging the dismissal of I.A. No.1033/2013 and A.S. No.68/2013, wherein the said I.A. was filed.
No.1033/2013, it could be seen that the said I.A. was dismissed on the sole reason that no documents had been produced to prove the cause of delay. More clearly, no medical records had been produced to show that he was suffering from skin disease. In this appeal, the appellant
RSA.998/2016
: 3 :
has filed I.A. No.2286/2016 under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to accept Annexures-A and B documents produced along with the affidavit and consider the same along with the appeal. Annexure-A is the certificate issued by a Doctor stating that the appellant had undergone his treatment for Chronic Allergic Eczema with Atopic Dermatitis during the period from 03.12.2011 to 11.05.2013 and he was not in a position to move out of his residence during the time of treatment. Annexure-B is the photograph showing the seriousness of the disease and the same was attested by the Doctor, who issued Annexure-A certificate. Obviously, from the documents produced by the appellant, it is seen that he was suffering due to chronic skin disease. I do not find any reason to disbelieve the certificate and the photograph attested by the Doctor, who treated the appellant. It is the fact that where a person is suffering from a chronic skin disease, he will be reluctant to go out of the house and the same will affect his entire life.
RSA.998/2016
: 4 :
R.S.A. is allowed and remitted back as above.
Sd/- (K. HARILAL, JUDGE)
aks/23/11
// True Copy //
PA to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether sufficient cause exists to condone a delay of 660 days in filing an appeal due to chronic skin disease.
Whether medical certificate and photographs are sufficient proof of inability to appear in court due to illness.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
P.G Janardhanan
Janardhanan
Bharathan
K. Harilal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
