The judgment emphasized the importance of prompt and prudent action in challenging court judgments and the need for sufficient evidence and cause to condone delays in filing petitions.

1. This petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to condone the delay 4509 days in filing the application to set aside the order, dated 14.8.1997, made in the second appeal, in S.A.No.414 of 1987.

2. The petitioner has stated that he was the first respondent in the second appeal filed before this Court, in S.A.No.414 of 1987. The petitioner has further stated that the respondents 1 to 6 in the present petition had filed a suit, in O.S.No.213 of 1981, before the Principal Subordinate Court, Cuddalore, praying for a decree to declare their title in respect of the suit property and for injunction restraining the respondents therein from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiffs in the said suit, and to restrain the petitioner herein from executing the decree obtained in the R.C.O.P proceedings concerned. The said suit had been decreed. Therefore, the petitioner had preferred an appeal, in A.S.No.193 of 1985, on the file of the Principal District Court, Cuddalore, South Arcot District. The said appeal had been allowed.

3. Challenging the judgment and decree, made in A.S.No.193 of 1985, the respondents 1 to 6 in the present petition had preferred a second appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Madras. While so, the appellants in the said second appeal had approached the petitioner, through one Sankara Chettiar, requesting the petitioner to settle the matter, amicably.

4. The petitioner has also stated that he had been taken to Chennai and put up at Hotel Sudha, on Poonamallee High Road, on the pretext that his counsel K.Venugopal would be coming to Chennai and that he would try to settle the matter, in his presence. It had also been stated that, on 13th of August, 1997, the petitioner was forcibly given some intoxicating drink, due to which he was totally disoriented. Since, he was not a habitual drinker he was in a disoriented state and not in his usual senses. He was taken to the High Court buildings on the following day and he was forced to sign some papers. He was a semi-literate person and he was not aware of what he was asked to sign. However, Sankara Chettiar, the representative of the appellants in the second appeal, had assured the petitioner that everything would be fine and that the petitioner could trust them and that the papers could be signed.

5. It had been further stated that the petitioner had returned to Cuddalore and had informed his local counsel that the appellants had made him to sign some papers. Immediately thereafter, the said counsel had verified from the High Court and had found that the second appeal had been allowed, on 14.8.1997, on a memo said to have been filed by the petitioner, conceding the title of the appellants. The petitioner and his counsel had been highly shocked to know that such a thing had happened, without his full knowledge, as the property is worth more than Rs.5 crores.

6. The petitioner has also stated that he had been defrauded by the appellants in the second appeal, by obtaining his signatures in certain papers, without informing him about the contents therein. As the petitioner had signed the papers without knowing its contents, he did not know the ramifications of his act at the time of the signing of the papers. If he had known about the ramifications of his act he would have refused to sign the papers. He had also stated that no prudent man would relinquish his rights in such a causal manner. He had also stated that when he had tried to contact his counsel at Chennai, he was informed that the said counsel had shifted his practice to Delhi.

7. In such circumstances, his local counsel, K.Venugopal, had asked the petitioner to contact Hema Sampath, Advocate, who is the sister-in-law of K.Venugopal. He had also stated that Hema Sampath had prepared an application to set aside the order, dated 14.8.1997, made in the second appeal, in S.A.No.414 of 1987, and had filed the said application on behalf