YATHISH Vs. P. SHEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the appellants counsel. This matter is listed for admission.

(2.) This second appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree of the Trial Court passed in O.S.No.268/2007 wherein sought for an order of specific performance and though filed written statement, they did not contest the matter and Trial Court having considered the material on record answered issue Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 as affirmative and comes to the conclusion that, the very contention of defendants that they executed the document as a collateral security and same has been answered as negative, since the defendants have not led any evidence before the Trial Court and the judgment was passed on 17/12/2011. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, an appeal was filed in the year 2018, almost after lapse of 7 years, wherein an application is filed to condone the delay.

(3.) The Trial Court examined the appellant as PW1 and respondent has also examined as RW1 and documents are marked at Exs.P1 and P2 only to support their contention and the First Appellate Court having considered the grounds urged in the appeal as well as the reasons assigned in the application particularly taking into note that written statement was filed and thereafter not contested the matter and though produced the death extract to show that defendant No.1 died on 16/5/2011 and the same was not reported before the Trial Court and even the appellants did not bring it to the notice of the Court and apart from that, E.P.No.80/2013 was filed wherein also JDR No.2 was served with notice on 30/4/2015 itself and JDR Nos.2 to 4 also subsequently served and they also did not respond to the execution and only in the year 2018 even after service of notice in execution petition, appeal was not filed immediately and hence the First Appellate Court having considered the material on record comes to the conclusion that there was a delay of more than 6 1/2 years and the same cannot be condoned in a causal way and casual approach is not permissible and unless the appellants have satisfactorily convinced the Court with regard to the delay is concerned, question of entertaining of the appeal does not arise and hence, dismissed I.A.1 and consequently, dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants. Being aggrieved of the said order, the present second appeal is filed.