Lack of diligence and valid reasons for condonation of delay can lead to the dismissal of a petition.

S.MANIKUMAR, J.

Order impugned in this writ petition, made in M.A.No.24 of 2015 in IA Sr.No.4945/13 in O.A.No.28 of 1998, dated 09.05.2016, passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai, is extracted hereunder.

"MA 24/15 IN IA SR 4945/13 IN OA 28/1998

9.5.2016

This is an application filed by the petitioners/defendants for condonation of delay of 850 days in representation IA SR.No.4945/13 which was returned by the Registry with certain objections. The only ground urged in the affidavit is that the returned application got mixed up with some other papers in the office of the counsel for the petitioners and for that reason, the petition could not be represented in time. It is stated that the delay is neither wilful nor wanton but only due to the above reasons. Thus contending, the petitioners prayed for condonation of delay in representing the petition IA SR.No.4945/13.

2. As notice was ordered to the respondent bank, respondent bank filed a detailed counter affidavit. In the said counter affidavit, the respondent traced the events that led to the filing of the OA and passing of the Final order by the Tribunal on 4.1.1999. The affidavit also contains reference to the citations in support of the plea of the respondent bank that the delay cannot be condoned as a matter of judicial generosity. The respondent thus contending prayed for dismissal of the petition.

3. At the outset, it is to be stated that this being only an application for condonation of delay in representing the returned application, the petition cannot be equated with an application under Sec.5 of the Limitation Act. Therefore, placing reliance on the case law rendered in the contest of Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, is not proper. The reasons assigned are nothing but routine. Even assuming that the delay can be condoned, yet the application in IA SR No.4945/2013 by the petitioner will once again be liable to be returned, as till date the petitioner did not choose to file any petition to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree. In fact, one of the reasons for returning the IA SR.4945/13 was that it was not accompanied by a petition under Sec.5 of the Limitation Act. The petitioners are not at all diligent in approaching the Tribunal. The date of passing of the decree also has been wrongly mentioned in the affidavit. When a decree passed on 4.1.1999, when sought to be set aside after a lapse of 4 years, the petitioners must be diligent and shall protect tenable and valid reasons for condonation of delay. Unfortunately this is lacking in this petition. This Tribunal do not see any bonafides on the part of the petitioners. The only aim of the petitioners seems to be to protract the proceedings on some pretext or the other. The reasons assigned are filmsy and unacceptable. Hence, the delay is not condoned. The petition is dismissed."

2. In the supporting affidavit, for condonation of delay, in MA.No.24 of 2015, the petitioners have contended that when an exparte decree was passed by the tribunal in O.A.No.28 of 1998, the petitioners have filed a petition to set aside the exparte decree on 20.08.2013. Registry of the tribunal returned the papers for some clarifications and granted two weeks time for compliance. Returned papers were mixed up with other papers in the learned counsel's office and hence, she could not represent the same, within the time granted by the registry. Thus, the delay of 850 days in representing the petition, arose.

3. Indian Bank, Senior Manager, Chennai, has filed a counter affidavit, wherein he has contended that O.A.No.28 of 1998 was filed against the defendants therein, for recovery of a sum of Rs.33,78,330.55p with future interest, at 19.38% per annum, with quarterly rests. Earlier, the 3rd defendant therein, V.Ranganathan had executed an agreement of guarantee dated 09.02.1995 and created an equitable mortgage by deposit of original title deeds. Both the borrower and the guarantors have defaulted in paymen