A significant delay in filing an appeal must be satisfactorily explained to be condoned; failure to do so results in dismissal.

JUDGMENT

Applicant seeks to condone the delay of 1180 days in filing the Miscellaneous First Appeal. The appeal is directed against the judgment in O.S.No.530/2010 dated 11.3.2014 of the Subordinate Judge’s Court (Addl.), Palakkad. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay as follows:-

“It is respectfully submitted that the judgment was pronounced on 11.03.14 and the copy application for getting certified copy was filed on 12.03.14. It is submitted that the stamp papers were called on 29.04.16 and the same was produced on 14.05.14. It is submitted that the copy was ready on 27.05.14 and the above Miscellaneous First Appeal ought to have been filed on or before 23.08.14, but the same is filed only on 16.11.17. This is essentially because of communication gap the disposal of the case was not in the knowledge. Since the post of the Executive officer gets changes frequently, necessary steps could not be taken in time so as to challenge the Judgment passed by the learned Subordinate Judge. Under the circumstances there occasioned a delay of 1180 days in preferring the above Miscellaneous First Appeal. It is submitted that there is no willful latches or omission on my part. The delay happened only because of reasons explained above.”

2. Applicant has stated that there was communication gap and the disposal of the suit was not within the knowledge of the deponent. The deponent is the executive officer of Sree Manappully Bhagavathy Devaswom. It is further stated that since the executive officer changes frequently, necessary steps could not be taken in time so as to challenge the impugned judgment.

3. The respondents have filed counter affidavit opposing condonation of delay. The respondents have stated in the counter affidavit as under:-

“2. At this juncture, it is pertinent to bring to the notice of this Hon'ble Court that, One U.V.Kumaran, Executive Officer, mounted the box as DW1 on behalf of the petitioner herein during January, 2014. The Suit was decreed as early as on 11.03.2014. The very same Executive Officer, U.V.Kumaran, continued in the temple as Executive officer till 2016. It is thereafter the present Executive officer, who sworn to the present affidavit took charge. The averment that due to frequent changes in staff has resulted in not knowing about the result of the case is blatant lie and just a pretext to shirk away from the liability of explaining the delay caused. It is submitted that the delay has not been properly explained in the affidavit filed in support of the petition to condone the delay. ….....”

4. In the instant case there is a delay of 1180 days according to the applicant. The 1^st respondent has contended in the counter affidavit that the delay is actually of 1195 days. It is well settled that the relevant consideration is not the number of days but whether the delay is satisfactorily explained and sufficient cause is shown to condone the same.

5. Two reasons have been stated in the affidavit of the applicant to explain the delay. One is regarding communication gap and the next reason is frequent change of executive officers. The 1^st respondent disputes these aspects and points out that the executive officer who was examined as DW1 before the learned Sub Judge during January 2014, continued as the Executive Officer till 2016. The said averment has not been denied by the applicants. Therefore, it is clear that the reason stated, of frequent change of executive officers was incorrect and misleading. Since the executive officer who was examined as a witness for the applicant continued in office till 2016, the contention regarding communication gap is also unacceptable. Admittedly, certified copy of the judgment was ready by 27