ORDER :

Prayer: C.M.P. No. 16662 of 2021 is filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to condone the delay of 1626 days in filing the first appeal against the judgment and decree in L.A.O.P. No. 241 of 2009 dated 29.07.2015 on the file of the III Additional District Court, Puducherry.

Prayer: A.S. No. 86861 of 2021 is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the award in L.A.O.P. No. 241 of 2009 on the file of the III Additional District Court, Puducherry dated 29.07.2015.

1. The delay of 1626 days in filing the Appeal Suit against the award passed in L.A.O.P. No. 241 of 2009 dated 29.07.2015 is sought to be condoned in the present Civil Miscellaneous Petition.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the delay occurred, since the petitioner suffered old age ailments during the relevant point of time. More so, the amount of Court fee to be paid is also huge and the petitioners were not in a position to pay the entire Court fee immediately. Thus, the delay is to be condoned.

3. Uncondonable delay cannot be condoned in a mechanical manner. No doubt, Courts may take a lenient view, if the delay is meagre but unexplained long delay cannot be condoned. The nature of the explanations are to be considered for the purpose of forming an opinion whether it is sufficient or insufficient.

4. In the present case, the award was passed on 29.07.2015 and the Appeal Suit was filed on 24.09.2021 after a lapse of about 5½ years from the date of passing of the award. Such a long delay cannot be condoned in a routine manner by the Courts, since it would cause prejudice to the interest of the other parties.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made a submission that it is a land acquisition proceedings and the appeal instituted in respect of the same acquisitions are pending. Such a ground would be insufficient to condone a long delay of 1626 days. This Court cannot adopt different yardstick in condoning the delay and even the appeals filed by the Government with such long delay are rejected by this Court in a consistent manner.

6. That being the factum, the reasons stated are neither candid nor convincing and insufficient for condoning the enormous delay of about 5½ years.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of The Commissioner, Rameshwaram Municipality vs. Tmt. Subbuthayammal and Others, (2015) 4 LW 142, wherein the delay was condoned. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Dhiraj Singh and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others, (2014) 14 SCC 127, has also condoned delay in the appeal proceedings.

8. No doubt there are several judgments condoning long delay, considering the facts and circumstances of the case. As far as the condonation of delay is concerned, Courts are bound to consider the facts independently.

9. Reasons are live-link for condoning enormous delay. In the absence of valid reason, Court would not condone the long delay in filing the appeals. Law of limitation is substantive. Thus, an Appeal is to be filed within the time prescribed under the Statutes. Condonation of delay is an exception. Thus, the Courts are expected to exercise the power of discretion judiciously and by recording reasons. Mechanical approach in condoning the delay would undoubtedly cause prejudice to the interest of the other party.

10. 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 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 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