JUDGMENT :

S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Order 41 Rule 3A of CPC, 1908 to condone the delay of 668 days in filing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 03.03.2017 in O.S. No. 2 of 2014 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore, Vellore District.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed to condone the delay of 668 days in filing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 03.03.2017 in O.S. No. 2 of 2014.

2. The suit was filed for partition and the petitioner is the second defendant in the Original Suit. The appeal suit is filed challenging the preliminary decree passed in the partition suit and it is an admitted fact that an Interlocutory Application has already been filed by the respondents before the Trial Court for passing final decree and in that Interlocutory Application one Mr. V.B. Bhaskar, is appointed as an Advocate Commissioner, who in-turn received the remuneration of Rs. 20,000/- also and for the process of preparing the final report to be submitted before the Trial Court for passing a final decree, the case is listed for filing report on 09.01.2020.

3. Under these circumstances, the First Appeal is filed with petition to condone the delay of 668 days.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner strenuously contended that the petitioner was suffering with multiple disk disorders, Cervical Spondylosis-Radi Culovathy, Acid Peptic Disease, Type II Diabetic Mallitus, low back pain-Bilateral Sciatica and was almost crippled and bedridden from March, 2017 onwards. It is contended that the petitioner was unable to move out of bed and was suffering from pain and mental agony and he was not in a position to think about his case at all and thus not contacted his Advocate for the purpose of preferring an appeal.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner reiterated by stating that the delay is neither wilful nor wanton, however admitted that the delay of 689 days is enormous. When the petitioner was not in a position to meet his counsel for the purpose of filing an appeal, in view of his continuous ailments, the delay is to be condoned as the Appeal Suit is filed questioning the share to be allotted to the petitioner. In support of the said contentions, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner cited the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Arun Alexander Lakshman vs. A.P. Vedavalli, 2007 (4) CTC 449, wherein the Division Bench of this Court observed as follows in paragraphs 11, 17 and 18, which are extracted herein:

"11. It is settled law that "sufficient cause" must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence, or inaction, or want of bona-fide, is imputable to the applicant, the over-riding consideration being doing substantial justice. The Court should not lightly condone the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte Decree. Discretion is to be exercised like any other judicial discretion with vigilance and circumspection. The true test is whether the applicants have acted with due diligence.

...........

17. It is settled law that Section 5 application is to be construed liberally so as to do substantial justice to the parties. The provision contemplates that the Court has to go into the position of the person concerned and find out if the delay can be said to have been resulted from the cause which the petitioner had adduced and whether the cause stated in the circumstances of the case is sufficient. It is the condition precedent for the exercise of discretion that the Court must satisfy itself as to whether there was sufficient cause for exercising such discretion and condoning the delay. The expression 'sufficient cause' should be considered with pragmatism with a justice oriented approach.

18. Court has to see whether sufficient cause is shown for the delay. What is or what is not 'sufficient cause' would depend upon varied