AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.N. Ravindran, J.—C.M. Appln. No. 148 of 2010: This is an application to condone the delay of 239 days in filing the writ appeal.
The 4th respondent has sworn to an affidavit dated 11.12.2009. Paragraphs 2 and 3 thereof read as follows:
The judgment in the W.P(C) No. 8062/2008 (I) was pronounced on 24.3.2009. This application for certified copy of the judgment was filed on 24.8.2009. This application for certified copy of the judgment was received on 15.6.2009. The appeal ought to have been filed on or before.
It is most respectfully submitted that the petitioner could not come to Ernakulam to entrust the matter to the counsel for filing the Writ Appeal due to administrative exigencies and personal problems. The petitioner could entrust the file for the purpose of filing appeal only on 11 December 2009. The delay from 15.6.2009 to this day on account of the time taken for preparation of the appeal. Administrative steps to obtain sanction to file Writ Appeal has taken more time as it involved various agencies.
Apart from vaguely stating that the deponent could not come over to Ernakulam to entrust the matter to the counsel for filing the Writ Appeal due to administrative exigencies and personal problems the deponent has not given any cogent reason explaining the reason why the appeal could not be filed within time. The judgment impugned in the writ appeal was delivered on 24.3.2009. The certified copy was applied for on the same day. The copy was delivered over to the learned Counsel who appeared for the appellants on 25.5.2009, as per the endorsement on the certified copy of the judgment. The appeal ought to have been filed on or before 24.6.2009. The deponent however states in paragraph 2 that the application for certified copy was filed on 24.8.2009 and the certified copy was received on 15.6.2009, nearly two months earlier than the date of the application and that an appeal ought to have been filed within 30 days from that date. Apart from that, we are of the opinion that it is absolutely unnecessary for the deponent or any one among the appellants to travel to Ernakulam to entrust the matter to the counsel, when advanced means of communication like telex, fax and internet are available throughout India and in Kerala also. If the deponent or anyone of the appellants were desirous of filing the appeal, necessary instructions could have been given by anyone of those means or by regular post to the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants to take steps for filing the appeal. In such circumstances we are not satisfied that the reasons set out in para 3 of the affidavit filed in support of the application constitute sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
We accordingly hold that no grounds have been made out to condone the delay in filing the writ appeal. The application fails and is accordingly dismissed. Consequently the writ appeal is also dismissed.