ORDER :

[C.M.P.No.7334 of 2022 is filed under Order 41 Rule 3(A) of the Civil Procedure Code, to condone the delay of 821 days in preferring the First Appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 22.07.2019 in O.S.No.311 of 2018 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Namakkal.]

[A.S.Sr.No.23873 of 2022 is filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 22.07.2019 made in O.S.No.311 of 2018 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Namakkal.]

1. The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed to condone the delay of 821 days in preferring the First Appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 22.07.2019 in O.S.No.311 of 2018 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Namakkal.

2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner made a submission that the earlier counsel, who appeared for the petitioner, had not informed the petitioner about the decree and thus, there is a delay of 821 days in filing the appeal suit. However, the petitioner has not produced any evidence to substantiate the said reason.

3. Merely blaming a lawyer cannot be accepted by the Courts in a routine manner. If at all any litigant is raising an allegation against the lawyers, then it must be substantiated and in such circumstances, they have to establish that they have filed a complaint or initiated appropriate action. Merely for the purpose of condoning the delay, the litigants cannot be encouraged to raise allegation against the lawyers in a routine manner. Such a practice cannot be encouraged by the Courts. While blaming the lawyers or raising allegation against the lawyers, the litigants are expected to substantiate the said allegation.

4. In the present case, the petitioner has merely stated that the lawyer has not informed about the decree. Such statements cannot be trusted upon in the absence of any proof to establish the same and more so, the delay is enormous. Thus, an inference is to be drawn that the petitioner has not pursued the litigation properly.

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 e