ORDER :

Prayer: C.M.P. No. 8003 of 2022 is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay 1278 days in filing the appeal against judgment and decree dated 22.01.2018 made in O.S. No. 39 of 2008 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal.

Prayer: A.S. No. 23059 of 2022 is filed under Section 96 r/w Order 41, Rule 1 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 22.01.2018 made in O.S. No. 39 of 2008 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal.

1. C.M.P. No. 8003 of 2022 is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay 1278 days in filing the appeal against judgment and decree dated 22.01.2018 made in O.S. No. 39 of 2008 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal.

2. A.S. No. 23059 of 2022 is filed under Section 96 r/w Order 41, Rule 1 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 22.01.2018 made in O.S. No. 39 of 2008 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal.

3. The judgment and decree was passed on 22.11.2018 and the petitioners have chosen to file Appeal Suit on 30.03.2022 after a lapse of about four years.

4. The reason stated for condoning the enormous delay of 1278 days in the affidavit filed in support of C.M.P. No. 8003 of 2022 is that the papers are made ready during the month of March 2022. The petitioners got the documents filed in the suit from their counsel and kept the same in their house and they misplaced the bundle. Thereafter they searched the papers filed and therefore, there is a delay.

5. The petitioners state that they were unable to trace the documents and again they met the learned counsel and requested to get the copy of the documents. The learned counsel gave the xerox copy of the documents relied on by the petitioners in the suit and thereafter due to Covid-19 pandemic situation, they could not file the appeal.

6. In the present case, the suit was disposed of on 22.01.2018 and the Covid-19 pandemic situation was from April 2020. Therefore, the reasons stated by the petitioners are neither candid nor convincing.

7. Long delay cannot be condoned in a routine manner by the Courts. Uncondonable delay cannot be condoned, which would cause prejudice to the interest of the other parties.

8. 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.

9. 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 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 discreti