JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred against the dismissal of A.S.

No.40 of 2010 on the files of the District Court, Thodupuzha.

2. The appellants, aggrieved by the judgment and decree in O.S. No.31 of 2005 on the files of the Munsiff Court, Thodupuzha filed an appeal with I.A. No.412 of 2010, an application to condone the delay. The District Court, Thodupuzha took up the application on 04.10.2010 and passed a detailed order, by stating that though an affidavit was filed for condonation of delay, the person who had sworn to the affidavit had no knowledge as to what transpired for the last five years and thus, the court concluded that there is an inordinate delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the I.A. was dismissed. Consequent to the dismissal of the I.A., the appeal itself was dismissed on 04.10.2010. Hence, the appeal.

3. Heard Sri. Nirmal S., the learned counsel appearing for the appellants.

4. This Court had called for a report from the Munsiff Court, Thodupuzha as to whether the judgment and decree in O.S. No.31 of 2005 was finally executed. A report dated 17.12.2025 has been placed on record, wherein, it is stated that the judgment and decree was put to execution in E.P. No.50 of 2009 and on 10.08.2010, a lease agreement was executed.

5. The question before this Court is as to whether this Court should issue an order admitting the appeal on any substantial question of law that is sought to be raised before this Court. Pertinently, the deponent who sworn to the affidavit in support of the application for condonation of delay could not give any explanation as to what transpired for the period of five years, for which, the delay occurred in filing the appeal.

6. The Supreme Court inSivamma (Dead) by Lrs. v.Karnataka Housing Board and Others [2025 KHC OnLine 6789] had categorically held that inordinate delay caused due to the administrative lethargy of the institutions or public sector undertakings cannot be taken lightly and the High Court do not condone such delay.

7. In the light of what is stated above, this Court is of the considered view that since no sufficient cause has been shown before the First Appellate Court for condoning the delay of five years, the order passed by the District Court, Thodupuzha in rejecting the application for condonation of delay cannot be found fault with.

8. That apart, from the report of the learned Munsiff, it is evident that during the pendency of the appeal, the decree was put to execution. Therefore, at this distance of time, it will be wholly inappropriate for this Court to disregard the indefeasible right that has accrued in favour of the plaintiff/Decree Holder.

In such circumstances, finding that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal, the appeal fails and accordingly, the same is dismissed.