Delay in representing a plaint can be condoned under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code if the plaintiff has made out a case of condoning the delay and the delay was not deliberate or negligent.

This revision is directed against the order passed in I.A. No.393 of 1992 filed in O.S.No.105 of 1991. The plaintiff is the petitioner herein. The suit was filed for specific performance of the contract for sale of the suit property. The plaint was filed on 13. 1992 and the same was returned for complying with certain defects on 6. 1992. The plaint was re-presented with a delay of 102 days. According to the plaintiff the reason for the delay is that the plaint and other connected papers got mixed up with other case bundles and could not be traced and represented in time. Hence it was submitted that the delay is due to the above said bona fide fact. However, the delay was not condoned. It is against that order, the present revision has been preferred by the plaintiff.

2. Learned senior counsel Mr. G. Subrmaniam appearing for Mr. R. Swaminathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the plaint was returned with a direction to re- present the same after complying with the return on or before 2. 1992. But it was not represented in time. It was represented with a delay of 102 days. According to the petitioner the delay was not deliberate and wanton and therefore the delay in representing the plaint should be condoned. In order to explain the delay in representation, the Advocate clerk of the plaintiff was examined and in his oral evidence he clearly stated the reasons for the delay. He also filed an affidavit stating the reason for the delay of 102 days in representing the plaint. It was therefore submitted that the trial court ought to have condoned the delay in representing the plaint. It was further submitted that the suit was valued and a court-fee of Rs.75,000/- was paid under Sec-27-C of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. When the plaintiff has paid so much of court-fee, it is not correct to state that the plaintiff was deliberately delayed the representation of the plaint. It was therefore submitted that the delay of 102 days in representing the plaint should be condoned and the plaintiff should be permitted to prosecute the suit on merits.

.3. On the other hand, learned counsel, Mr. R. Balasubramania, appearing for respondents 1 and 2 vehemently contended that the plaintiff was deliberate and negligent in committing the delay in representing the plaint. According to him, the suit was filed on the basis of an oral contract. Therefore the suit filed by the plaintiff is a vexatious litigation. According to learned counsel, after the delay was not condoned, certain further developments took place and on account of which, the suit property improved in its value to a very great extent. Under such circumstances, if the delay in representation is condoned and the plaintiff is permitted to prosecute the suit on merits, that would cause great hardship to the interests of the respondents. He further submitted that the oral evidence given by the Advocate clerk of the plaintiff’s counsel is not only false but also unbelievable. For all these reasons it was submitted that the trial court was correct in not condoning the delay and rejecting the plaint.

4. Learned senior counsel, Mr. R. Krishnamurthy (Advocate General) appearing for learned counsel Mr. R. Muthukumaraswamy, for respondents 3 to 5, submitted that there was no contract for sale in favour of the plaintiff. The suit property belongs to a partnership firm consisting of two partners - defendants 1 and 2. They have no authority to enter into any contract of sale to sell that suit property with the plaintiff. The suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed in limine, since there is no valid contract for sale of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. Since the delay in representing the plaint was deliberate, the trial court refused to condone the delay in representation. If the delay is condoned and the plaintiff is permitted to prosecute the suit, that would cause great hardship to these respondents. It was therefo