JUDGMENT:

The appellant, being plaintiff in the suit filed the above second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 27.08.2014 in A.S.No.49 of 2011 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa, confirming the judgment and decree dated 25.07.2011 in O.S.No.218 of 2001 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa.

2. Suit O.S.No.218 of 2001 was filed by the plaintiff against the defendants 1 and 2 for partition of plaint schedule property into three shares and to allot one such share to the plaintiff. Pending the suit, 3rd defendant was added. Trial Court decreed the suit and preliminary decree was passed in respect of item Nos.1 and 2 of suit schedule properties and in respect of item No.3, suit was dismissed.

3. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, plaintiff filed appeal A.S.No.49 of 2011 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa. Lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 27.08.2014.

4. Against the said judgment and decree, the above second appeal was filed by the plaintiff with a delay of 2631 days. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition to condone delay, the appellant pleaded at Paragraph-8 as follows:

“8. I humbly submit that in view of the pecuniary facts and circumstances stated above the delay in filing the present appeal is neither willful nor wanton but for the reasons stated above. I humbly submit that if the delay is not condoned I will suffer irreparable los and hardship and the same cannot be compensated. It is further submitted that my substantial right of immovable property is involved in the appeal, if the appeal is not heard and adjudicated my legal and substantial rights in the schedule property being coparcener will be defeated. It is not out of place to submit that I am having good chances of succeeding in the appeal, unless this Hon’ble Court suspends the decree and judgment of trial Court, I will be put to irreparable loss.”

5. Since the appeal is filed with an inordinate delay, this Court ordered notices to respondents.

6. 3rd Respondent filed counter and opposed the application.

7. Pending the second appeal, 2nd respondent died and I.A.No.5 of 2022 was filed to bring the legal representatives of 2nd respondent as respondents 4 and 5. Notice was ordered in the said petition and Sri S.Ganesh Babu, learned counsel filed vakalat on behalf of proposed respondents 4 and 5.

8. Heard Sri M.Delhi Babu, learned counsel for appellant and Sri B.S.Venkata Ramesh, learned counsel for 3rd respondent.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant relied in the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another Vs. Mst.Katiji and others, (1987) 2 SCC 107.

10. Learned counsel for 3rd respondent relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority and Anr. Vs. Gopi Chand Atreja, AIR 2019 SC 1423.

11. In Katiji’s case, the matter arises under Land Acquisition Act and the appeal was dismissed, since it was filed with a delay of four days. Considering the facts and circumstances of the said case, the Apex Court condoned the delay.

12. While considering the application for condonation of delay, the Court has to see whether the delay is inordinate or delay is few days and that reasons assigned are valid and cogent. Party seeking condonation of delay needs to explain the delay properly, the grounds which are reasonable and plausible.

13. In Balwant Singh (dead) v. Jagdish Singh and Ors., (2010) 8 SCC 685 after referring to earlier case law, the Hon’ble Apex Court held at paragraphs 24 and 25 as under;

“We may state that even if the term “sufficient cause” has to receive liberal construction, it must squarely fall within the concept of reasonable time and proper conduct of the party concerned. The purpose of introducing liberal construction normally is to introduce the concept of “reasonableness” as it is understood in its general connotation.

The law of limitation is a substantive law and has def