ORDER :

Prayer: C.M.P. No. 18895 of 2021 is filed under Order 41 Rule 3A of Code of Civil Procedure, to condone the delay of 1635 days in filing the appeal.

Prayer: A.S. No. 101068 of 2021 is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the award in L.A.O.P. No. 58 of 2008, on the file of the III Additional District Court, Puducherry dated 29.07.2015.

1. The civil miscellaneous petition is filed to condone the delay of 1635 days in filing the Appeal Suit against the award passed in L.A.O.P. No. 58 of 2008 dated 29.07.2015.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the delay occurred on account of the fact that the petitioner was not in a position to pay the Court Fee for want of funds and thus, there was a delay. Further, there was a delay in filing the copy application to get the certified copy of the award passed in L.A.O.P. No. 58 of 2008. The delay in filing copy application cannot be a ground to condone the enormous delay of 1635 days in filing the Appeal Suit. Further, even in case the parties state that they have no cash immediately, they can file it appropriately and thus, the very reason stated would be insufficient to condone the long delay of 1635 days in filing the Appeal Suit.

3. 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.

4. 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 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