STATE OF KERALA, Vs. K.K. SASIDHARAN,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C .M. Appl.1880 of 2010 is filed seeking condonation of delay of 1125 days in filing the appeal. The impugned judgment was delivered on 30.6.2007. Certified copy of judgment was applied for exactly on completion of two years, on 29.6.2009. The certified copy was promptly issued on 24.7.2009 and this appeal is filed on 28.10.2010. The attributes made after 24.7.2009 is to the usual red tape excuses of communication between the District Collector and the Advocate General's office, vice versa, preparation of pleadings etc. Even if we are to take that on the face value, we do not find any reason at all being stated for the delay of two years in applying for the certified copy of the judgment.

(2.) WITH the aforesaid, we looked into the merits of the appeal as well. The plaintiff was engaged to de -water certain paddy fields in a padsekharam. Amounts were due to him through Punja Special Officer and the Tahsildar. He had to ultimately sue for monies due to him. The defence taken was that the plaintiff had not conducted de -watering process as per the terms and conditions of the agreement in time. The court below found that the existence of a contract between the parties was not disputed and in terms of the provisions of the Kerala Irrigation Works (Execution of Joint Labour) Act, 1967, there is some procedure to be carried out after the de - watering exercise is completed. The court below found on evidence that the non -payment was only on account of non - preparation of proper forms by the plaintiff and that the witness offered by the defendants was one who was not conversant with the facts and who was not working in the office of the Punja Special Officer at the relevant time and that he had not prepared any materials, on the basis of which, the court could decide otherwise. The suit was accordingly decreed with future interest at 6% per annum. The plaintiff had also to sue by seeking exemption from payment of court fee and he has to pay court fee due to the Government for having filed a suit for recovery of money due from the Government. We do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment. The appreciation of evidence is appropriately reflected by the contents of the judgment. We feel that no injustice will be caused if the application for condonation of delay is dismissed.