Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 20260
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
JAIBY JOSE – Appellant
Versus
THE MANAGER – Respondent
RFA 192/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Advocate James Manual
For the Respondents: Not specified
The court ruled that mere allegations of fraud by a former counsel do not constitute sufficient cause to condone extensive delays in appeals, emphasizing the necessity for detailed and credible evidence.
Headnote:(A) Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Condonation of delay - Appeals filed after significant delays of 7611, 7583, 7611, and 7619 days - Allegation of fraud against counsel insufficiently substantiated - Consent statements signed by defendants were valid - The court found no sufficient cause for condoning the delay. (Paras 6-10)
(B) Legal principles - The necessity of proving 'sufficient cause' for delay - The burden lies on the appellants to justify the inordinate delay in filing appeals. (Paras 8-9)
Facts of the case:
Defendants appealed against decrees from 2003, alleging their former counsel forged consent statements. They failed to explain the delay satisfactorily.
Findings of Court:
The court dismissed the delay petitions, ruling that the appellants did not prove sufficient cause for the extensive delays.
Issues: The main issues were whether sufficient cause was demonstrated for the delay in filing appeals and the validity of the consent statements.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that allegations of fraud must be detailed and credible; mere assertions are insufficient for delay condonation.
Result: Delay petitions dismissed; all appeals stand dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. defendants challenge decrees from 2003 with significant delays. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. court emphasizes the need for sufficient cause in delay condonation. (Para 5 , 8) |
| 3. appellants allege fraud by their former counsel affecting consent statements. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. appeals are dismissed due to lack of sufficient cause for delay. (Para 10) |
COMMON JUDGMENT/ORDER
In R.F.A.No.187 of 2024, defendants 1 to 3 in O.S.No.197 of 2002 on the files of the Sub Court, Muvattupuzha, assail decree and judgment in the said suit dated 01.07.2003. This appeal has been filed along with C.M.Appl.No.1 of 2024 seeking condonation of delay of 7611 days in filing the appeal.
2. R.F.A.No.192 of 2024 also is at the instance of the same appellants and in this appeal they impugn judgment in O.S.No.195 of 2002 dated 01.07.2003. This appeal has been filed along with C.M.Appl.No.1 of 2024 seeking condonation of delay of 7 83 days in filing the appeal.
3. The same appellants filed R.F.A.No.193/2024 challenging decree and judgment in O.S.No.198/2002 dated 01.07.2003. This appeal has been filed along with C.M.Appl.No.1 of 2024 seeking condonation of delay of 7611 days in filing the appeal.
4. The same appellants filed R.F.A.No.196 of 2024 challenging decree and judgment in O.S.No.196/2002 dated 01.07.2003. This appeal has been filed along with C.M.Appl.No.1 of 2024 seeking condonation of delay of 7619 days in filing the appeal.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants as well as the sole respondent in all these appeals and the respondent in all the delay petitions. Perused the averments in the petitions as well as the affidavits filed by the petitioners and counter affidavits filed by the sole respondent.
6. At the outset it could be gathered that, in all the suits when the sole respondent herein filed suit for realisation of money, defendants filed consent statement and accordingly the suit was decreed with 9% interest. Now the appellants/petitioners/defendants assail the verdict and according to the appellants, Advocate James Manual, who appeared for them before the trial court forged consent statement of the appellants in collusion with the plaintiff and accordingly the suits were decreed. In the affidavit in support of C.M.Appl.No.1 of 2024 in paragraphs 3 and 4 the reasons for the delay are reiterated and the same are as under:
“3. Adv.James Manual, a friend and relative of defendants, who was the counsel of the appellants/defendants in the suits, fraudulently forged consent statements of appellants/defendants colluding with the respondent/plaintiff, and filed consent statements in the suits and on that basis respondent/plaintiff obtained decrees in the suits. By that defendants suffered wrongful loss and respondent/plaintiff obtained wrongful gain. The suit was decreed as per consent statement on 01.07.2003. Adv.James Manual misguided the appellants and after several years appellants came to know the truth and clearly mentioned in RPIA no.434/2012. At that time appellants consulted another advocate and took certified copies of documents related with suit since they don't have any documents with them because already they have entrusted Adv.James Manual earlier. The death of 3rd defendant also affected the conducting the legal battle against fraud. Later the appellants filed a restoration petition before Trial Court on 29.02.2012 and it was dismissed on 11.03.2024. The appellants were not aware of the fraud done by previous counsel and when they came to know about it they filed restoration petition.
4. Application R.P.I.A No.434/2012 was filed by appellants under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and under Section 44 of the Indian Evidence Act to set aside the decree in OS 198/2002 dated 01.07.2003 and for restoration of the suits for disposal on merit.”
7. Zealously opposing the condonation of long delay of 7611, 7583, 7611 and 7619 days respectively in filing the respective appeals, the respondent filed a very detaile
