ORDER :

[C.M.P.No.21332 of 2022 is filed under Order 41 Rule 3(A) of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying to condone the delay of 889 days in filing this present Appeal Suit against the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.258 of 2016 dated 14.03.2018 on the file of the III Additional District Court, Salem pending disposal of the above first appeal. A.S.Sr.No.121274 of 2022 is filed under order XLI Rule I and Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the Judgment and Decree made in O.S.No.258 of 2016 dated 14.03.2018 on the file of the III Additional District Court, Salem.]

1. The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed to condone the delay of 889 days in filing this present Appeal Suit against the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.258 of 2016 dated 14.03.2018 on the file of the III Additional District Court, Salem.

2. Admittedly, the suit for Partition was decreed by the trial Court on 14.03.2018. It is a contested suit, wherein the petitioner is the 6th defendant.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was a collusion within the family members in demarcating the suit schedule properties as per the decree and therefore, there is a delay in filing the appeal suit. Execution Petition was filed and pending, when the suit itself was contested by the petitioner herein and the decree was passed on merits.

4. If at all the petitioner is not satisfied with the suit, he should have filed an appeal within the time limit prescribed by the law. In cases, where the delay is meagre, the Court may take a lenient view. As far as the long delay in filing the appeal suit is concerned, the Courts are expected not to condone the delay in a mechanical manner and more so, in the absence of any acceptable reason. Mere attempt of the family members to resolve the issues would be insufficient to condone the long delay. Therefore, the contentions of the petitioner that there is a collusion between the family members cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of condoning the delay in the present case.

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 decisio