The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of showing readiness and willingness, the requirement to demonstrate bona fides, and the impact on the rights accrued to the opposite party in the context of condoning a delay in representing a petition.

1. In the affidavit of the petitioners/plaintiffs advocate, the following averments are found:

1.(i) The junior advocate of the plaintiffs counsel affirms that the suit bundle was returned for some corrections from the Court, however, the bundle mingled with other bundles in the advocates office and hence he could not represent in the court in time, therefore, 1573 days delay has occurred in representing the petition, which may be condoned.

2. In the counter filed by the first defendant/first defendant, it is stated as below:

2. (i) The petition is not maintainable which is liable to be dismissed in limini. The alleged reasons stated by the petitioner is not at all valid to condone the delay of 1573 days. It is not correct to state that the bundle got mingled with other bundles in the advocate office and the person who has filed the affidavit is not having vakalat in the suit. There is no merit in the petition and the petition has to be dismissed.

3. The following are the allegations contained in the counter filed by the fifth respondent/defendant:

.3. (i) The petition is not maintainable. The petitioner is put to strict proof of the allegations found in the affidavit. The reason for not representing the petition in time is not acceptable. The affidavit is totally blank with regard to the facts when the case bundle was lost and when it was located. The reason is neither acceptable one nor a valid one. The delay is enormous and if it is condoned, the valuable right of limitation available to the respondent will be lost. The petitioner or his advocate should have been cautious to preserve the case bundle. At least the petitioner ought to have taken steps to reconstruct the bundle with the office copy. Nothing such sort of steps have been taken by the petitioner. Hence there is no bona fides in the allegations found in the affidavit to condone the delay. Having slept over for a long time, the petitioner cannot now come and ask for condoning the delay. The general principle of law is that the law should not help a person who sleeps on his right. Hence the petition has to be dismissed with costs.

4. After hearing both sides, the learned Sub-Judge, Namakkal has dismissed the petition to condone the delay of 1573 days by observing that since the petition was represented beyond the time of limitation which is prescribed for filing of the suit, and that the representation is not valid. Before the trial court both sides have not adduced any oral evidence nor produced any documentary piece of evidence.

5. The back drop of the circumstance under which the petition was filed for condoning delay has to be considered in the light of the facts discernible in this case and the law settled in this regard. Factually, one has to admit that the reasons assigned in the affidavit are as vague as possible and it may be usual allegations that the bundle got mixed with other bundles in the Advocates office which could not be traced out for the purpose of representation in time. However, if the said reason is explained to the satisfaction of the Court, there could be no embargo on the part of the court to condone the delay. The fifth respondent has assailed the reasons mentioned in the affidavit by stating that it contains usual reasons which have been made in a casual manner and that no particulars are available with reference to return of case bundle. It is to be seen that the petitioner counsels junior advocate has affirmed the affidavit. Hence some sanctity has to be attached to it. Still the court has to hesitate to entertain those reasons if the same is not depicting the facts properly. It is also contended that Mr. Palanisamy, advocate who has filed the affidavit has no vakalat in this case.

.6. The plaint was originally presented on 210. 1991 into the Sub-Court, Sangagiri, for the relief of specific performance of a contract entered into between both parties. On account of territorial jurisdiction, the matter had come up before