ORDER :

1. The Civil Revision Petition has been instituted, questioning the validity of the fair and decreetal order dated 3rd November 2022 passed in I.A. No. 1 of 2022 in O.S. No. 12 of 2019.

2. The Revision Petitioner is the defendant in the suit. The respondent instituted the suit for Partition. The suit was set ex-parte against the defendant on 16.08.2019. After a lapse of about 3 years, the revision petitioner/defendant filed an Interlocutory Application to condone the delay of about 1016 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte order.

3. The petition to condone the delay of 1016 days was adjudicated by the trial Court and the trial Court found that the revision petitioner/defendant has failed to file the written statement and she was present, when ex-parte order was passed on 10.07.2019, but she has stated as if she was ill and could not attend the Court, which is false. The written statement was not filed, in spite of the fact that she was given sufficient opportunity. This petitioner has entered appearance in the final decree petition and has taken time falsely representing she has filed petition to set aside ex-parte decree. But the petition is filed after nearly three years as if the petitioner could not file due to medical reasons. The revision petitioner/defendant has not come with clean hands. The records support the statement of the plaintiff.

4. The trial Court further recorded the fact that the decree was passed nearly 1½ months, since the ex-parte order was passed. The revision petitioner/defendant had the knowledge of the pendency of the case, has chosen to file the Interlocutory Application to condone the delay of 3 years. Thus, the reasons stated was not considered as justifiable and consequently, the Interlocutory Application was rejected.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner mainly contended that the petitioner is aged about 65 years and would not able to contact her counsel during the relevant point of time and the Courts may take a lenient view in this aspect and permit the revision petitioner to establish his right by adjudicating the suit on merits.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner relied on the judgment in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123, where, the principles for condoning the delay are considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

7. No doubt, umpteen number of judgments are delivered by the Courts across the country regarding the principles for condoning meagre delay and long unexplained delay.

8. Uncondonable delay cannot be condoned by the Courts in a routine manner. Law of limitation is substantive. Thus, the rule is to file cases or defend the cases by strictly following the law of limitation. Condonation of delay is an exception. The Courts are expected to exercise the power of exception in a judicious manner, not to cause prejudice to the rights of the other parties. Rights are mutual. It is not only for the plaintiff or the defendant. When either of the party is prolonging and protracting the suit without any justifiable reason, the Courts are bound to take a view that rights of the other parties are also prejudiced and in such circumstances, it is not desirable to condone an enormous delay, which all are not explained or justified before the Court of law. Thus, it is not as if the Courts are expected to take a lenient view in the matter of condonation of delay. Already there is a large scale allegation that the Civil Suits are not disposed of within a reasonable period of time and kept pending for generations. One hand, people are making complaint against the Courts. On the other hand, they are not following the procedures as contemplated for effective disposal of the cases. Legal heirs are working out, are adopting tactics for the purpose of prolongation of the civil suits. On the other hand, the other parties are attempting for speedy disposal of the cases. Thus, only with the cooper