AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.—The C.M. application is filed seeking condonation of delay of 341 days in filing the appeal. Different
reasons are stated in the affidavit accompanying the application, including that certified copy of the judgment was obtained with the assistance of
one Mr. Nadirsha and it was misplaced somewhere. An additional counter affidavit has been placed on record along with I.A. 3910/10. The
respondents have filed different other materials also. Ultimately, it is also stated that the impugned decree has been satisfied by the defendant
depositing the balance sale consideration as decreed by the court below, may be with some variation, which could be satisfied even out of court. In
this premise, having looked into the merits of the matter also, we do not find any ground to condone the delay as sought for. We are not impressed
that the appellant could have engaged some other private person and obtained certified copy. Needless to say that the said person, Mr. Nadirsha
had retained certified copy somewhere. We are satisfied that no sufficient grounds are raised for condonation of delay. The application is hence
dismissed. As a consequence of the dismissal of the C.M. Application, this appeal is rejected since it is barred by limitation. The appeal
memorandum being rejected, the appellant is entitled to refund of the entire court fee paid on it.Such refund is ordered hereby.