ORDER :

[C.M.P.No.11947 of 2021 is filed under Order 41 Rule 3 A read with Order 42 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to condone the delay of 2646 days in filing the First Appeal.]

[A.S.Sr.No.45657 of 2021 is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Order 41 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 29.10.2012 made in O.S.No.160 of 2011 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Coimbatore.]

1. The Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed to condone the delay of 2646 days in filing the First Appeal, challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 29.10.2012 made in O.S.No.160 of 2011 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Coimbatore.

2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly contended that the petitioner has mediated with the respondent for the purpose of settling the issues. On account of such mediation, the petitioner has not chosen to file the appeal suit immediately and thus, the delay is to be condoned.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, denied the said contention by stating that there was no Mediation and the reasons stated in the affidavit are false and not substantiated.

4. Even in case there is a Mediation, the Court cannot condone such a long delay for the purpose of admitting the appeal suit. The decree was passed in the year 2012 and almost ten and half (10 ½) years lapsed. This being the factum, this Court is of the opinion that condonation of delay would cause prejudice to the interest of the other parties and more so, the reasons stated in the affidavit, filed by the petitioners are neither candid nor convincing.

5. 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.

6. 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 respondent cited the judgment of this Court in the case of Zulaiha Syed Mohideen Vs. D.Visalakshi Ammal & Others reported in 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 in