The court emphasized the importance of diligence in filing appeals and highlighted the necessity to exhaust remedies as contemplated under the relevant legal provisions before approaching the civil court.

1. Inveighing the order dated 20.01.2010, passed in I.A.No.30 of 2009 in A.S.C.F.R.No.3560 of 2009 by the Sub Court, Bhavani, this civil revision petition is focussed.

2. Heard both sides.

3. Broadly but briefly, narratively but precisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus:

(i) The revision petitioner filed the suit O.S.No.272 of 2005 seeking the following reliefs:

"(a) To declare the order of conditional attachment made by the 1st defendant herein in CEP No.06 of 2004-2005 dated 05.08.2003 as null and void against the schedule mentioned properties of the suit properties.

(b) To restrain the defendants, their men and agents and any other officials of the defendant herein from bringing the schedule mention properties for sale by means of the consequential permanent injunction; and

(c) for costs."

(ii) Ultimately, after trial the suit was dismissed, as against which the defendants intend to prefer an appeal, but there was a delay of 1190 days. In order to get the delay condoned, I.A.No.30 of 2009 was filed. On hearing both sides, the lower Court dismissed the said I.A.

4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the lower Court, this revision has been filed on various grounds, the quintessence of them would run thus:

The lower Court failed to take into account the genuine reasons put forth by the revision petitioner that she was suffering from jaundice. Unless an opportunity is given to the petitioner to put forth her case in the appeal, she would be put to discomfiture and prejudice. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds of revision would develop his argument that the plaintiff is having a genuine case and if the delay is not condoned, then she would not be in a position to assert her right over the property, which is unjustifiably brought for sale by the authorities concerned under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. The delay also was properly explained, but without citing proper reasons in rejecting the same, the lower Court dismissed the said application.

5. However, the learned Government Advocate for D1 to D3 would contend vehemently that absolutely there is no reason much less valid reason for condoning the delay of 1190 days. Merely citing that the petitioner was suffering from jaundice cannot be taken as sufficient reason. Accordingly, he prays for the dismissal of the revision.

6. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any illegality or impropriety on the part of the lower Court in dismissing the application on the ground that there was no sufficient ground to condone the delay of 1190 days?

7. Obviously and axiomatically, the delay of 1190 days which tantamounts to more than three years is really an enormous delay in filing the appeal. However, if at all the plaintiff was interested in asserting her right over the immovable property, within a reasonable time after the dismissal of the suit, she should have taken steps to prefer the appeal. The conduct of the party would speak by itself that the party was not diligent in preferring the appeal.

8. A mere poring over and perusal of the judgment of the trial Court in O.S.No.272 of 2005 would evince and demonstrate that the plaintiff has not chosen to establish her right over the property placing reliance on Ex.A2. Repeatedly the trial Court in the judgment referred to the fact that there was no iota or molecular extent of evidence to correlate the suit property with that of the properties found detailed and delineated in Ex.A2. I am fully aware of the fact that at this juncture, this Court is not expected to give its verdict on the correctness or otherwise of the findings given in the judgment of the trial Court. Even then, purely for the purpose of understanding the gamut of the suit, I would like to proceed further. I recollect and call up Rule 135 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as "The Ac