Appeal by Shaji Krishnan challenging dismissal of IA to condone 480-day delay in filing appeal regarding money recovery suit. Court found no sufficient reason for delay, noting appellant appeared in execution proceedings earlier.
Application to condone delay dismissed; Regular Second Appeal dismissed.
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 M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2024 / 31ST ASHADHA, 1946
RSA NO. 140 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.06.2023 IN AS NO.21 OF 2019 OF SUB COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.10.2017 IN OS NO.55 OF 2014 OF MUNSIFF COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY APPELLANT/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT:
SHAJI KRISHNAN AGED 47 YEARS S/O UNNIKRISHNA PANICKER, NANDU BHAVANAM, MUZHANGODI MURI, KALLELIBHAGOM VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690518
BY ADVS. JAMSHEED HAFIZ K.K.NESNA T.S.SREEKUTTY
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:
JAYAKUMAR
AGED 51 YEARS S/O SARASA KURUP, MALAMELVILAYIL, KALLELIBHAGOM MURI, KALLELIBHAGOM VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690518
BY ADVS. UMMUL FIDA C.IJLAL(K/826/2013) P.PARVATHY(K/994/2016) JAI GOVIND M.J.(K/1976/2019)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
RSA No.140 of 2024
JUDGMENT
This Regular Second Appeal is filed challenging the judgment of the First Appellate Court dismissing the appeal consequent to the dismissal of I.A No.197 of 2019 to condone delay of 480 days in filing the appeal, framing questions of law and taking grounds against the order refusing to condone delay.
RSA No.140 of 2024 3
have filed the Appeal before the First Appellate Court within a reasonable time from 16.07.2018. Hence the First Appellate Court rightly rejected the I.A 197 of 2019 to condone the delay of 480 days. I went through the judgment passed by the trial Court also. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money on the strength of Ext.A1 Promisory Note. He filed the suit after issuance of Ext.A3 Lawyer notice. In order to prove Ext.A1, the plaintiff himself was examined as PW1 and the Scribe of Ext.A1 was examined as PW2.
RSA No.140 of 2024 4
that, the case of the defendant is that of denial of execution of Ext.A1. But the defendant did not sent any Reply to Ext.A3 Legal Notice. He did not step into the box to deny the execution of Ext.A1 document. There is no material contradiction between the evidence of PW1 and PW2. Hence, the Trial Court was in right in decreeing the suit. The interest of 6% granted by the Trial Court is also reasonable.
In view of the aforesaid facts, I do not find any sufficient reason to condone the delay in filing appeal before the appellate Court and also to entertain this Regular Second Appeal. Accordingly, the Regular Second Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM JUDGE
Anu
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the condonation of delay of 480 days in filing the appeal warranted accepting the appellant's explanation.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shaji Krishnan
Jayakumar
M.A. Abdul Hakhim
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
