ORDER :

[C.M.P.No.7710 of 2022 is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, to condone the delay of 1066 days in filing the Appeal.]

[A.S.Sr.No.34905 of 2022 is filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the Judgment and Decree passed by the Hon'ble Judge XIX, Additional City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.11108 of 2010 (C.S.No.747 of 2009 dated 22.11.2018) and decree the Suit.]

1. The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed to condone the delay of 1066 days in filing this present Appeal Suit against the Judgment and Decree passed by the Hon'ble Judge XIX, Additional City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.11108 of 2010 (C.S.No.747 of 2009 dated 22.11.2018) and decree the Suit.

2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly contended that the petitioners are husband and wife and both were not well and had to meet the Doctors for the purpose of taking treatment.

3. To substantiate the said illness of both the petitioners, the petitioners have not filed any documents or evidences. In the absence of any evidence to establish the reason, long delay cannot be condoned by the Courts in a routine manner.

4. In the present case, the suit was filed in the year 2010, which was decreed in the year 2018 and now after a lapse of four years, the appeal is filed. If the civil cases are allowed to go on in this manner, the rights of the parties would be prejudiced and further more, the petitioner has not furnished any acceptable reason for the purpose of condoning the delay.

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 interregnum, the other party could have asserted a vested right. With this background, let us analyse the merits of the rival co