The judgment establishes the importance of a bonafide cause and diligence in pursuing legal remedies, emphasizing that the length of delay is not the sole criterion for condoning delay.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 04.07.2003 in A.S.No.240 of 2001 on the file of the V Additional Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai confirming the judgment and decree dated 09.07.2001 made in O.S.No.9548 of 1995 on the file of the XV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai.)

(The case has been heard through Video Conferencing)

1. Miscellaneous petition in C.M.P.No.11197 of 2020 is filed by one Neeta H.Mehta, D/O Late Mr.Harshkant Mehta to condone delay of 1761 days in filing the petition to set aside abatement caused due to the death of the sole appellant. She wants to get impleaded as the legal heir of the unmarried brother Pranav H. Mehta. He is the plaintiff in the suit and the sole appellant in the second appeal and he died on 07/07/2015.

2. The factual background of the litigation is that, Late Mr. Pranav.H.Mehta, claiming himself as the sole proprietor of M/s Bapalal and Company, filed suit in O.S.No.9548 of 1995 before the City Civil Court, Chennai, to (1) declare defendants 1 to 5 are not the partners of the said firm, (2) restrain the defendants from interfering the affairs and assets of the said firm and further describing and claiming themselves as partners of the said firm, by an order of permanent injunction. The defendants were the four partners who agreed to retire from the partnership firm.

3. The suit was initially filed on the original side of the High Court and taken on file as C.S.No.933/1995. Later, transferred to Assistant City Civil Court and re numbered as O.S.No.9548/1995. The suit was contested on the ground that though on principle, the defendants agreed to retire and agreement was drawn, the settlement of accounts between the parties did not take place due to differences of opinion among the partners, on valuation and distribution of assets and properties of various partners.

4. After contest, the suit was dismissed on 09/07/2001. The plaintiff Pranav H. Mehta filed statutory appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, before the Additional City Civil Court. His appeal suit in A.S.No.240/2001 was also dismissed vide, judgment dated 04/07/2003. Thereafter, the second appeal filed in time, but defectively. To rectify the defects and represent the papers, there was 318 days delay. The said delay was condoned on payment of costs Rs.300/- to Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, as per the order passed in C.M.P.No. 13564/2005. The second appeal was numbered as S.A.No.1077/2005.

5. Pending second appeal, interim relief of Injunction sought in C.M.P. No.14707/2005, this Court ordered interim stay and notice by order dated 02/09/2005. The respondents filed vacate stay petition in V.C.M.P.No.47/2006 since the interim stay cause delay in distribution of the assets among the partners. Pending adjudication in the interim stay order and vacate stay petition, the second respondent Tushaar Mehta died on 27/09/2005 and his legal representatives were brought on record as respondents 5 to 7 by order dated 24/03/2006 in C.M.P.No. 18443/2005.

6. When the second appeal came up for hearing on 21/01/2020, the learned counsel for the sole appellant reported the demise of the sole appellant and sought time to file necessary applications. He also reported, respondents 1 and 4 also died. Accordingly, time was granted till 10/02/2020. The case was again listed on 25/02/2020, further time sought to bring the legal representatives of the sole appellant. Hence, time extended till 09/03/2020.

7. Then the pandemic broke, the Courts were closed for physical hearing. The matter was again listed for hearing after 6 months on 22/09/2020 and heard virtually. The learned counsel reported that, the petitions filed on 25/02/2020 to bring the legal representative of the deceased sole appellant along with petitions to set