ORDER :

Prayer: C.M.P. No. 519 of 2021 filed under Order 41, Rule-3(A) of the Civil Procedure Code, to condone the delay of 880 days in filing the above A.S. No. 118823 of 2021. A.S. No. 118823 of 2021 filed under Section 96 r/w Order 41 of C.P.C. challenging the judgment and decree dated 06.12.2018 made in O.S. No. 30 of 2012 on the file of learned I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been instituted to condone the delay of 880 days in filing the appeal suit against the judgment and decree dated 06.12.2018 passed in O.S. No. 30 of 2012.

2. The petitioners are the defendants 1 to 3 in the suit and the suit was instituted by the respondents for partition. The decree was passed by the trial Court on 06.12.2018.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the parties were negotiating for settlement of issues. The second petitioner states that he went to abroad and therefore, not in a position to file an appeal immediately. He authorized his father to pursue the case, who, in turn, has not filed any appeal. After returning back to India, the second petitioner contacted his Advocate and filed an appeal with a delay of 880 days.

4. It is not in dispute that the second petitioner authorized the petitioners 1 and 3 to pursue the suit. They were pursuing the suit all along. Therefore, the reason stated by the second petitioner that he went abroad cannot be accepted since his father was pursuing the suit instituted by the respondents for partition.

5. Uncondonable delay cannot be condoned in a routine manner. Long delay can be condoned only if the reasons are substantiated. Law of limitation is substantive law and to be followed scrupulously by the Courts. Rule is to file the appeal in time adhering to the limitation. Condonation of delay is an exception. Thus, the delay can be condoned only if the reasons are genuine and acceptable. In the event of condonation of enormous delay in the absence of any valid reason, the same would cause prejudice to the other parties and thus, the Courts are expected to take lenient view only if the delay is meagre and not otherwise.

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 and 8359 of 2018 in A.S. No. 32087 of 2018 dated 12.01.2023 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 and Others, 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 revi