Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 627 (KER)

Shajikumar v. Krishnan

2026-05-22

Easwaran S

body2026
JUDGMENT Easwaran S., J. C.M. Appl.No.1 of 2025 in RSA No.477 of 2025 and RSA No. 477 of 2025. This application is filed for condoning a delay of 1202 days in filing the appeal. Essentially the reason offered by the appellant is that his mother was not keeping well and, therefore, he had to spend considerable time and attention to treat her. It is further pointed out that though the judgment of the First Appellate Court was rendered on 11.03.2022 reversing the judgment and decree in O.S.No.645 of 2011, the appellant was trying to cope up with the job in Idukki and to take care of his ailing mother. He further pointed out that the files relating to case were missing from the office of the lawyer and thereafter it was traced out and the appeal was filed on 25.07.2025 with a delay of 1202 days. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents opposing the plea for condonation of delay by contending that the reasons does not warrant a proper explanation of a huge delay of 1202 days. 3. A specific plea is raised that the reason offered in the affidavit does not constitute a sufficient cause or any satisfactory explanation of cogent reasons for condonation of delay of 1202 days. Based on the counter affidavit, this Court felt that the reasoning offered in paragraph 5 of the affidavit accompanying the application for condonation of delay was not proper and then permitted the appellant to file a fresh additional affidavit amplifying the averments in paragraph 5 of the affidavit. Accordingly, an additional affidavit along with an application to accept additional documents has been placed on record. 4. Heard Sri. Arun V. G., the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Smt. Nisha George, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. Sri. Arun V. G., the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that a lenient view be taken by this Court as regards the plea for condonation of delay. 4. Heard Sri. Arun V. G., the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Smt. Nisha George, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. Sri. Arun V. G., the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that a lenient view be taken by this Court as regards the plea for condonation of delay. He further pointed out that the same reasoning are offered by the appellant in filing RSA No.250 of 2026 and that the delay insofar as the other appeal is concerned, though it is 1453, the same was necessitated due to avoid a technical objection on the side of the respondents since the judgment and decree was passed on two different appeals in A.S. No.301 and 302 of 2016. He further relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Inder Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh [2025 KLT OnLine 1591 (SC)] and contended that while considering the application for condonation of delay, the endeavor of the Courts must be to render substantial justice to the parties and that the respective merits of the case cannot be discarded. Referring to the records of the treatment in the form of the medical prescription, the learned Counsel for the appellant submits that his mother was undergoing a treatment for Osteoarthritis and also diabetics and the care and attention of the appellant was completely devoted to taking care of his mother and the job at Idukki and therefore, the delay occurred. 6. Per contra, Smt. Nisha George, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the delay in filing the appeal as RSA No.477 of 2025 must be considered first and if this Court finds that the delay is condonable, that the delay in filing RSA No.250 of 2026 could be condoned automatically because the appeal was necessitated only because of the technical objection raised by the respondent. She further submits that the delay of 1202 days in filing RSA No.477 of 2025 cannot be condoned because the reasoning offered in paragraph 5 of the affidavit hardly constitutes a sufficient cause for the purpose of considering an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 . She further submits that the delay of 1202 days in filing RSA No.477 of 2025 cannot be condoned because the reasoning offered in paragraph 5 of the affidavit hardly constitutes a sufficient cause for the purpose of considering an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 . She further pointed out that, even assuming that the treatment records in the form of medical prescription produced along with the additional affidavit are taken as such, that would only lead to an presumption that the mother of the appellant was suffering from certain ailments. At any rate, she points out that the ailments as revealed from the additional documents are as such which does not require a constant attention of the appellant so as to warrant his complete devotion of time. 6.1. She further submits that it is unbelievable to accept the explanation caused by the appellant that the entire care and devotion of his time was dedicated towards his mother which completely prevented him from filing this appeal and that too with a delay of 1202 days. In support of her contention, relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Odisha and Others v. Managing Committee of Namatara Girls High School [2026 SCC OnLine SC 191] and Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and Others [ 2013 (12) SCC 649 ] 6.2. It is asserted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the sufficient cause should be understood in the proper spirit and with regard to the fact that the terms are elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective obtaining factual situation. It is further pointed out that in the guise of seeking a relief on the plea of a substantial justice and a liberal approach, gross negligence of a party cannot be accepted. 7. I have considered the submissions raised across the Bar and perused the affidavits in both the cases. 8. True, the reasoning offered by the appellant is that he was completely devoted to taking care of his mother. Of course, this Court would have accepted the situation, especially where it is the duty of a devoted son to take care of his mother. But, on the guise of that plea, this Court cannot shut its eyes to the fact that the delay caused is nearly three and half years. Of course, this Court would have accepted the situation, especially where it is the duty of a devoted son to take care of his mother. But, on the guise of that plea, this Court cannot shut its eyes to the fact that the delay caused is nearly three and half years. The period of 1202 days in filing the appeal cannot be ignored lightly on a simple assertion that the time of the appellant was devoted to the care of the mother. If as a matter of fact, the delay was of a lesser days, probably this Court would have been persuaded to hold that the appellant was entitled to a certain amount of latitude in the matter of delay. 9. Now, coming to the additional evidence produced before this Court, it must be remembered that the judgment and decree was passed in A.S. Nos. 301 and 302 of 2016 on 11.03.2022. The evidence now produced before this Court pertains to a period after the same. The Medical prescription reveals that the treatment, which is stated to have been undergone by the appellant mother she is from 16.08.2023 onwards till 2026. Therefore, even for a moment, not disbelieving the medical prescription which has been produced along with the additional affidavit, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the appellant has failed to satisfy conscience of this Court that from 11.03.2022 to 16.08.2023, he had undertaking any activities which led to the treatment of his mother. 10. That apart, an additional reason has also been stated by the appellant in its affidavit stating that the files from the Advocate Office have been found to be missing and later, the same was traced out and the appeal was filed. As regards the said averment, there is a complete lack of proof and, therefore, this Court is not persuaded to accept the said reasoning. 11. Coming back to the reasoning offered by the appellant in the affidavit, it is evident that from 11.03.2022 till 2023, there is no evidence to show that the appellant was completely devoted to the treatment of his mother. Moreover, apart from the prescriptions of the year 2023, rest of the prescriptions which are used are for the year 2026. 12. Therefore, it appears that the appellant wanted to elicit sympathy from the Court in order to sustain his plea for condonation of delay of 1202 days. Moreover, apart from the prescriptions of the year 2023, rest of the prescriptions which are used are for the year 2026. 12. Therefore, it appears that the appellant wanted to elicit sympathy from the Court in order to sustain his plea for condonation of delay of 1202 days. This Court is afraid that whatever be the liberal approach this Court adopts, the reasoning offered by the appellant cannot outweigh the indefeasible right which has accrued on the part of the plaintiffs after 11.03.2022. Admittedly, the appeal was preferred only on 25.07.2025. Therefore, this Court is inclined to conclude that the nature of explanation given by the appellant in support of his application for condonation of delay is unsatisfactory and, therefore, does not constitute a sufficient cause and could only be construed as one that of a gross negligence on the part of the appellant. That be so, this Court cannot accept the plea of the appellant to adopt a liberal approach in the matter of condonation of delay. Accordingly, C.M. Appl. No.1 of 2025 is dismissed. Consequently, RSA No. 477 of 2025 is also dismissed. C.M. Appl. No. 1 of 2026 in RSA No. 250 of 2026 & RSA No. 250 of 2026 In view of the dismissal of C.M. Appl. No.1 of 2025 in RSA No. 477 of2025, the parties shall be governed by the same.