IMPORTANT POINT
(a) An application for condonation of delay should be drafted with careful concern and not in a half hazard manner harbouring the notion that the courts are required to condone delay on the bedrock of the principle that adjudication of a lis on merits is seminal to justice dispensation system. (b) An application for condonation of delay should not be dealt with in a routine manner on the base of individual philosophy which is basically subjective. (c) Though no precise formula can be laid down regard being had to the concept of judicial discretion, yet a conscious effort for achieving consistency and collegiality of the adjudicatory system should be made as that is the ultimate institutional motto. (d) The increasing tendency to perceive delay as a non-serious matter and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in a non-challant manner requires to be curbed, of course, within legal parameters.

JUDGMENT

S.Manikumar, J.

This Arbitration Appeal is filed against the judgment dated 16.8.2016 in O.P.(Arb.) No.19 of 2013 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Ernakulam. There is a delay of 1127 days in filing the appeal. The reasons stated in the said delay condonation application are that the judgment of the court below was pronounced on 16.8.2016 and the application for obtaining certified copy of the judgment and decree was filed on 30.10.2018. The stamp papers were called for on 8.11.2018 and copy of the judgment and decree was obtained on 12.11.2018. Paragraph 3 of the affidavit filed in support of C.M.Appln. No.1 of 2019 reads as follows:

“3. I most respectfully state that the judgment of the court below was pronounced on 16.8.2016 and application for obtaining the certified copy of the judgment and decree was filed on 30.10.2018. Stamp papers were called for on 8.11.2018. Copy was ready on 9.11.2018. The date notified for appearance to receive the copy was on 14.11.2018. The copy of judgment and decree was collected on 12.11.2018. Subsequently, the Superintending Engineer submitted the certified copy of the decree and judgment before the learned Advocate General by communication dated 11.2.2019 for perusing the same to take steps for filing appeal. Thereafter, the learned Advocate General placed the file before the Government Pleader for taking steps to prepare the appeal on 22.2.2019. Since the back records of the case was not attached with the case bundle produced before the Government Pleader, the Government Pleader contacted the Superintending Engineer for getting the copies of the relevant records. But since the parliament election was declared by that time, I and the concerned officers were busy with the election works and due to the same I was not in a position to look in to the matter till the election is over. Thereafter, the concerned officer from our office contacted and met the Government Pleader on 6.8.2019 and had discussions about the case. The officer concerned again contacted and visited on 13.8.2019, 24.8.2019 and 5.9.2019 for producing the back records of the case before the Government Pleader. Subsequently, the Hon'ble High Court closed for Onam holidays from 6.9.2019 to 18.9.2019 and the days from 8.9.2019 to 15.9.2019 were continuous public holidays.

4. Hence there occurred some delay in filing the above Arbitration Appeal. I respectfully state that there is no latches or negligence from the side of the appellants for causing the delay in filing the appeal. The delay was occurred due to the above reasons. Hence it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 1127 days in filing this appeal. A separate petition for condonation of delay is filed along with, which may be allowed in the interest of justice.”

2. There is absolutely no reason as to why the appellants did not file any application for obtaining certified copy of the judgment between 16.8.2016 and 30.10.2018. There is a delay of more than two years. The delay has not been properly explained.

On the aspect of condonation of delay and resubmission of papers, this Court is inclined to refer the following decisions:

“(i) In the General Manager, Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi & Another v. T.Shadrak, reported in 1978 TLNJ 332, a learned single Judge of this Court held that in so far as delay in representation is concerned notice to the respondent is not necessary. After referring to the decisions in Karuveeppil Veera Vunni's Younger Brother Ahammad Kutty & Ors. v. Kottakkat Kuttu (AIR 1933 MAD 315), wherein, it was held that any time that is allowed in re-presentation is only by way of concession and therefore with reference to such concession granted by the Court, the respondent who had not even received notice in the main case, which would be issued only after the main case is admitted has no locus standi to object to the granting of the said concession. In the above said reported case, after considering