ORDER :

The uncondonable delay cannot be condoned by the Courts in a routine manner. Meagre delay in filing the appeal suit may be condoned, provided the reasons stated are acceptable and the parties, who all are preferring an appeal are expected to be vigilant in pursuing the matter.

2. In the present case, the appellant is the defendant in the suit filed by the respondent for recovery of money. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court on 30.10.2017 in OS No.429 of 2014. The appellant herein filed an appeal suit with a delay of 1,739 days (about 4-1/2 years).

3. Perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition reveals that the delay occurred on account of the closure of the appellant-College and they suffered financial loss. The said reason is unconnected with the appeal suit to be filed within the time limit against the judgment and decree passed in money suit in OS No.429 of 2014. Except the said reason, there is no convincing reason for the purpose of condoning such an enormous delay in filing the appeal suit. In the event of condoning such long delay in a routine manner, there is likelihood of causing prejudice to the other parties, who is the decree holder, more specifically in money suit.

4. The legal principles to be followed for condoning the delay is well settled and this Court also considered the said principles in C.M.P.Nos.8358 & 8359 of 2018 in AS.SR.No.32087 of 2018 dated 09.12.2019 and the relevant paragraphs are extracted as under:

“10. In respect of said contentions, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent cited the judgment of this Court in the case of Zulaiha Syed Mohideen Vs. D.Visalakshi Ammal & Others reported in MANU/TN/2222/2013, wherein the Court made following observations;

“5. Before going into the merits of the case, first of all, it should be stated that in a case of this nature for condonation of delay, it is well settled that length of delay is not material, but the reasons stated thereof for condonation of delay. In other words, for condonation of delay, the reasons adduced must be properly pleaded, convincing and acceptable and explanation should be offered for condonation of the delay. Unless proper explanation is offered, the Courts could not exercise its discretion in the proper perspective to advance substantial justice. It is also settled that when a court has exercised its discretionary power to condone the delay, the appellate Court, in exercise of its discretion, should not ordinarily interfere with such decision unless the discretion exercised is arbitrary and overlooking the interest accrued to another party to the dispute. The appellate Court should also see whether the trial court has taken into consideration all the aspects of the matter, the advantage or disadvantage that may be caused to the other side while condoning the delay inasmuch as during the interregnum, the other party could have asserted a vested right. With this background, let us analyse the merits of the rival contentions urged by the counsel for both sides.

6 to 11.......

12. On behalf of the revision petitioner, several decisions were cited. The learned counsel for the respondents objected for relying on the decisions by stating that they relate to condonation of delay in filing a petition and not with respect to condonation of delay in re-presenting a petition. Such an argument of the counsel for the respondents cannot be countenanced. Each and every case depends on the facts and circumstances of that case. Further, the issue involved in this case is whether the delay in filing a petition has been properly explained and sufficient cause has been shown for the delay or not and in support of the same, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has relied on the following decisions:-

(i) In (Kandaswamy and four others vs. Krishnamandiram Trust, Karur, by its Trustees and 33 others) 2001 (4) CTC 722 this Court took note of the fact that the conduct of the revision petitioner in ke