ORDER :

The civil revision petition has been filed against the order dated 16.07.2019 passed in I.A.No.565 of 2018 in O.S.No.340 of 2009.

2. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff, who instituted the Suit for permanent injunction and the Suit was dismissed for default earlier on 21.11.2014 itself. Subsequently, it was restored by the Trial Court, again the Suit was dismissed for default on 22.11.2016 and the petitioner/plaintiff second time filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.565 of 2018 to condone the delay for 405 days in filing a petition to restore the Suit.

3. The Suit was instituted in the year 2009 and it was initially dismissed for default in the year 2014 and the Trial Court restored the Suit and once again the petitioner remained absent and the Suit was dismissed for default again on 22.11.2016. The Interlocutory Application was filed to restore the Suit with a delay of 405 days. The only reason stated by the petitioner is that he was unable to contact his counsel on account of fever. The Trial Court considered the reason and found that the petitioner has not substantiated the said illness or otherwise and thus, dismissed the petition seeking condonation of delay.

4. Un-condonable delay cannot be condoned in a routine manner. Long delay, if un-explained, cannot be considered for the purpose of condoning the delay. In the present case, the Suit was instituted for permanent injunction in the year 2009 and it was dismissed for default in the year 2014. The Trial Court restored the Suit and even thereafter, in the year 2016 once again the Suit was dismissed for default.

5. That being the case, the petitioner has not vigilantly pursued the Suit and allowed the Court to dismiss the Suit for default on two occasions. Even the reasons stated for condoning the long delay of 405 days in filing a petition to restore the Suit are neither candid nor convincing.

6. 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 de