B. K. SANGALAD, J. ( 1 ) HEARD on LA. No. I. ( 2 ) THERE is a delay in filing this appeal to the extent of 739 days. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to Mr. Mariyappa, learned Counsel for the appellant, the deceased Karisid dadevaru who himself was a practising Advocate and the son-in-law of the appellant was not keeping sound health. He met with an accident on 18-4-1997 and also he was admitted in the jayadeva Institute of Cardiology on 26-1-1998 and subsequently, suffered another heart attack and was admitted into Bowring and Lady curzon Hospital, Bangalore on 17-9-1998 and was discharged on 24-9- 1998. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay is not deliberate. As such, the delay be condoned. ( 4 ) ON the other hand, Mr. R. S. Naik, learned Counsel for the respondent 1 submitted that in the affidavit nowhere it is mentioned that the deceased Karisiddadevaru was hospitalised before he met with an accident. It is also submitted that the judgment by the I Additional District judge was pronounced on 4-12-1996 in R. A. No. 8 of 1989. The application for certified copy was made on 5-12-1996 itself and the same was supplied on 6-1-1997. According to Mr. Naik, there was no impediment for the deceased Karisiddadevaru who himself was an Advocate to prefer an appeal before he met with an accident. Even subsequently also, it was not shown that he was continuously in such condition as to prevent him from taking to any recourse. ( 5 ) IN view of these submissions, the affidavit is perused. ( 6 ) THERE is an enormous delay in filing this appeal. One may have sympathy for the deceased, as he himself was an Advocate. In addition to being an Advocate, he was also the son-in-law of the appellant. Having been in such position, he ought to have taken more care to prefer this appeal well in time. One could understand at least if there is any material to show that he was hospitalised continuously even prior to meeting with an accident. In absence of such materials, it is not possible to condone the delay. Hence, LA. No. I is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. --- *** --- .