The main legal point established in the judgment is that sufficient cause must be provided for condonation of delay in filing an appeal, and failure to do so can lead to dismissal of the petition.

The above Civil Revision Petition arises against the fair and final order passed in C.M.P.No.385 of 2015 in A.S.SR.No.14526 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. The revision petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.4580 of 2010 on the file of the XVI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

3. The respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.4580 of 2010 for recovery of possession and for mandatory injunction restraining the defendants 1 & 2 from disturbing their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

4. Since the defendants failed to appear before the trial Court, they were set exparte and an exparte decree was passed on 13.09.2013.

5. Pursuant to the decree passed in O.S.No.4580 of 2010, the plaintiffs filed an Execution Petition in E.P.No.2320 pf 2014 on the file of the X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The 2nd petitioner is the son of the 2nd respondent and the 1st respondent is the mother of the 2nd respondent. The 1st petitioner is the wife of the 2nd petitioner.

6. On 12.11.2014, the defendants/Judgment Debtors filed a memo before the Executing Court stating that in view of the close relationship between the parties, the matter may be referred to Lok Adalat.

7. On 20.11.2014, the plaintiffs/Decree Holders filed objections for the memo filed by the defendants stating that with a malafide intention to prolong the proceedings, the Judgment Debtors have filed the memo for referring the matter to Lok Adalat. Further, they have stated that if the matter is referred to Lok Adalat, it would cause great prejudice to them. Further, they have prayed for rejection of the memo dated 12.11.2014.

8. Thereafter, on 23.03.2015, the defendants filed an appeal in A.S.SR.No.14526 of 2015 as against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.4580 of 2010 with a petition in M.P.No.385 of 2015 to condone the delay of 518 days in filing the appeal. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, in paragraph no.5, the defendants have stated that they were under the impression that the matter was almost settled and due to which they did not instruct their counsel to proceed further. The 2nd petitioner has further stated that he married the 1st petitioner against the wishes of the respondents since the 1st petitioner belongs to a different community. Further, in paragraph no.7, the 2nd petitioner has stated that due to his health problem and frequent visits to out station, he was not in a position to get himself examined before the trial Court and only because of the various talks held between the family members, he did not take steps to file the appeal in time. The plaintiffs disputed the averments stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition specifically stating that knowing fully well that the suit was decree against them, they remained silent deliberately without taking steps either to get the exparte decree set aside or to file an appeal in time.

9. The Lower Appellate Court, taking into consideration the case of both parties, dismissed the petition finding that the appellants failed to explain the reasons for the delay of 518 days in filing the appeal in a proper manner. As against the order passed by the Lower Appellate Court, the defendants have filed the above Civil Revision Petition.

10. Heard Mr. S.R. Rajagopal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. T.T. Ravichandran, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

11. Mr. S.R. Rajagopal, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners submitted that the defendants have explained the reasons for the delay in a proper manner before the Lower Appellate Court and however, inspite of the same, the Lower Appellate Court had erroneously dismissed the petition. Further, the learned counsel submitted that the prayer sought for in the suit are mutually inconsistent and should not have been granted by the trial Court. The learned counsel submitted that the prayer for recovery of possession an