ORDER :

The Civil Miscellaneous Petition in CMP No.94 of 2023 is filed to condone the delay of 873 days in filing Appeal Suit against the Judgement and Decree dated 30.01.2019 in O.S.No.262 of 2015.

2. The reason stated by the revision petitioner is that he engaged an Advocate, who applied for the copies of the Judgement on 26.07.2021 and the copy was received on 11.08.2021 and thereafter, he arranged for funds and filed the Appeal Suit on 05.10.2021. However, the petitioner has not explained the delay of about two (2) years from the date of Judgement and Decree i.e., on 30.01.2019 and the date of application filed for receiving the copy of the Judgement on 26.07.2021.

3. Unexplained delay cannot be condoned in a routine manner and the delay from 30.01.2019 to 26.07.2021 remains unexplained and the said delay, which is enormous, cannot condoned by the Court.

4. The principles regarding the condonation of delay with reference to the judgements of the Constitutional Courts are elaborately considered by this Court 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 keeping quite for over two years only on account of inability to mobilise other petitioner evidences would amount to gross negligence, irresponsible inactive attitude and therefore the petitioner lacks bonafides. Under those circumstances, this Court refused to condone the delay of 797 days in filing a petition to set aside the exparte decre