ORDER :

[C.M.P.No.8822 of 2022 is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 3825 days in filing the Memorandum of Appeal.]

[A.S.Sr.No.51551 of 2022 is filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the Decree and Judgment dated 24.08.2011 passed in O.S.No.101 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Vellore.]

1. The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed to condone the delay of 3825 days in filing this present Appeal Suit against the Decree and Judgment dated 24.08.2011 passed in O.S.No.101 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Vellore.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that based on the ex-parte decree, Sale Deed was executed in favour of the respondent by the Court in the year 2012 and the petitioner was not provided with an opportunity to contest the suit. Substituted Service was effected and based on the Substituted service, ex-parte decree was passed against the petitioner. Thus, the decree itself is fraudulent and therefore, an opportunity is to be provided to the petitioner to contest the case by condoning the delay of 3825 days.

3. The fact reveals that the suit for Specific Performance was instituted by the respondent in O.S.No.101 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Court, Vellore. Based on the Sale Agreement dated 15.06.2006, an ex-parte decree was passed by the trial Court on 24.08.2011. The decree holder filed E.P.No.131 of 2011. The Execution Petition was allowed and the sale deed was executed by the Court on 05.12.2012 in implementation of the decree passed in O.S.No.101 of 2009. The possession was also taken by the Court and the suit property was handed over to the respondent on 22.02.2014. The petitioner herein filed I.A.No.68 of 2014 in O.S.No.101 of 2009 to condone the delay of 922 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree. The said Interlocutory Application was dismissed and the revision filed by the petitioner in C.R.P.(NPD).No.3167 of 2015 was also dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner has chosen to file the present appeal suit after a lapse of about 11 years from the date of passing of the decree in O.S.No.101 of 2009.

4. Pertinently, the decree was passed on 24.08.2011 and pursuant to the orders passed in the Execution Petition, Sale Deed was also executed in favour of the respondent by the Court on 05.12.2012 and the Interlocutory Application filed to set aside the ex-parte decree was also dismissed, which was confirmed by the High Court. Thereafter, the petitioner has chosen to file the present appeal suit against the ex-parte decree.

5. Even after the execution order was passed by the Court concerned, the petitioner had not chosen to file the appeal suit against the decree. The Interlocutory Application filed to set aside the ex-parte decree was also dismissed and thereafter also, the petitioner has not filed any appeal. However, he filed a revision against the said order.

6. Uncondonable delay cannot be condoned in a routine manner by the Courts. Filing of a suit or application within the limitation is the rule. Condonation of delay is an exception. While condoning the delay, more specifically, enormous delay, the Courts have to consider the genuinity of the reasons furnished by the person, seeking condonation of delay. Only if the reasons are genuine and acceptable, then alone, such huge delay are to be condoned and not otherwise. Law of limitation is substantive law. Thus, the condonation of delay cannot be a routine affair. A person, who is not vigilant, is not entitled for the relief after a prolonged period.

7. The legal principles to be followed for condoning the delay is well settled and this Court considered the said principles 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 re