M.VENUGOPAL, J.

The Petitioner/Defendant/Appellant has projected the present Miscellaneous Petition under Or.41 R.3A of the Civil Procedure Code, praying for passing of an order by this Court to condone the delay of 18 days in filing the Appeal in A.S.SR.No.20590 of 2014 as against the Judgment and Decree dated 26.02.2010 in O.S.No.150 of 2005 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court-III, Coimbatore.

2. The Averments in Miscellaneous Petition (Filed by the Petitioner/Defendant/Appellant):

a) The entire suit was misconceived, devoid of merits and hinged upon two documents which were forged and fabricated by the Respondents/Plaintiffs to support their case. In fact, the forgery was demonstrated before the lower Court. As a matter of fact, the trial Court was misled by the said forged documents and passed a judgment in the suit in O.S.No.150 of 2005 on 26.02.2010, citing legally untenable and unacceptable reasons. Hence, the present Appeal is filed.

b) The Petitioner/Defendant had applied for certified copies of the judgment through the Learned counsel on 03.03.2010 itself, and the same was called for on 02.06.2010 and the necessary fee was deposited on 04.06.2010 itself but the copy was made ready only on 20.11.2013 and owing to the inordinate delay, the readiness was known only later and the copy was finally delivered on 07.02.2014. Immediately, after receiving the same, the Petitioner came to Chennai, approached the Learned counsel on record and instructed them to prefer an Appeal. The Learned counsels advised the Petitioner to bring certain vital papers to prefer the Appeal, since it took several days to make search and bring the same, there had occasioned the delay.

c) The Petitioner came to know that the Respondents/Plaintiffs had filed Executive Petition to execute the Decree passed in O.S.No.150 of 2005 dated 26.02.2010. In fact, the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court in O.S.No.150 of 2005 are erroneous and based on misconceived. Under these circumstances, the delay of 18 days in preferring the instant Appeal may be condoned.

3. The Gist of counter (Filed by the Respondents/Plaintiffs):

i) The Petitioner knowingly and wantonly suppressed very many material facts. As such, the Miscellaneous Petition suffers from the principle of 'suppressio veri suggesio falsi' and on this ground alone, the petition is to be dismissed in limine. Further, the Petitioner/Appellant had filed a copy application in C.A.No.514 of 2010, in which, the judgment and original decree were received by the Copy Section of the District Court, Coimbatore on 31.05.2010 and that copy papers were called for on 02.06.2010. As a matter of fact, the Petitioner/Appellant had deposited the necessary copy papers on 04.06.2010 and further that, the copy papers were made ready on 21.06.2010. Finally, the Petitioner/Appellant received the certified copy of the judgment and decree of the main suit on 21.06.2010 itself and this fact can very well be seen from the 'A Register' maintained by the Copy Section of the District Court, Coimbatore.

ii) Moreover, the preliminary decree for Rs.80,26,830/- was passed on 26.02.2010 and the typographical error in the said decree was modified to Rs.92,64,973/-. The Respondents/Plaintiffs had received the said certified copy of the 'Judgment and Decree' in the year 2010 itself and they had received the same under Xerox Copy Application No.2191 of 2010. Also, after passing of 'Preliminary Decree', the Respondents/Plaintiffs had received the copy of 'Judgment and Decree' dated 21.06.2010 under Copy Application No.601/2010 and 625/2010 and again received the copy of the Judgment and Preliminary Decree on 19.02.2013 under copy Application No.1087 of 2010. The Respondents/Plaintiffs received the copy of 'Final Decree' on 01.08.2012 in Copy Application No.1255 of 2012 for filing the same into Registrar's office and also to file the Execution Petition. Therefore, the 'Judgment and Decree' were available in the