The main legal point established is that while a liberal approach should be extended in considering applications for condonation of delay, genuine reasons and lack of bona fides are crucial factors. Valuable rights accrued to the opposing party should not be lightly defeated by condoning delays.

1. This revision is preferred against the order dated 6.1.2005, passed in I.A. No. 401/2004 in unnumbered A.S.C.F.R. No. 14873/2004 on the file of the Principal District Court, Erode, dismissing the petition and declining to condone the delay of 477 days in representing the appeal. Defendant is the Revision Petitioner.

2. The Revision Petitioner/Defendant is the son of the first Respondent. Respondents 2 to 4 are the sisters of the Revision Petitioner. The suit was filed by the Respondent in O.S. No. 70/1997 for partition which was decreed on 15.7.2002. The Revision Petitioner preferred an Appeal on 11.4.2003, which was returned on 21.4.2003 and the case was not represented within the stipulated time.

3. TheRevision Petitioner has filed I.A. No. 401/2004 praying condonation of delay of 477 days in representing the appeal. According to the Revision Petitioner, he has been conducting business in several towns on commission basis and that he could not meet his counsel to give instructions in proceeding with the appeal. It is further stated that the Petitioner has been taking steps to settle the matter with his mother and sister but the settlement failed. When he met his counsel to represent the appeal, there was a delay of 477 days in representing the same and the delay is not wilful.

4. The application was resisted by the Respondents contending that the petition has been filed only to delay the allotment of due shares to the Respondents. The Respondents have filed application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner and the Commissioner has also filed a Report on 24.9.2004. At the stage of passing of Final Decree, to drag on the proceedings, the Revision Petitioner has filed the application to condone the delay in filing the appeal and there is no bona fide . Finding that the delay is not properly explained, the trial Court declined to condone the delay and dismissed the application, against which the present revision is filed.

5. Thelearned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has submitted that condoning the delay in representation is between the Court and the appellant and showing indulgence to the appellant in condoning the delay cannot be objected to by the Respondents. It is further submitted that the first Appellate Court being the final Court on factual aspects, an opportunity is to be given to the Defendant to challenge the correctness of the Judgment and Decree in O.S. No. 70/1997.

6. Countering the arguments, the learned counsel for the Respondents has submitted that the inordinate delay of 477 days in representing the delay is not properly explained. It is further submitted that valuable rights accrued to the Respondents cannot be defeated by showing indulgence to the Revision Petitioners.

7. The appeal was filed on 11.4.2003; subsequently returned on 21.4.2003 for rectification of defects. Thereafter, the Revision Petitioner has not represented it for a long time. There was a delay of 477 days in representing the appeal. The contention of the Revision Petitioner that he had to travel to many places in connection with his business and that he could not contact his counsel is not substantiated by any material. No material had been produced showing that the Revision Petitioner was travelling several places.

8. The Commissioner has filed his report and hence valuable right has accrued to the Respondents who are none other than mother and sister of the Revision Petitioner. Such valuable rights accrued to the Respondents cannot be allowed to be defeated by showing indulgence to the Revision Petitioner by condoning the delay.

9. Contending that condoning the delay in representation is between the Court and the Appellant, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submitted that the Respondent cannot have any objection for condoning the delay. It is further submitted that the Court should not proceed with the tendency of finding fault with the cause shown and negative the reasons for the delay in a casual ma