ORDER :

The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed to condone the delay of 1177 days in filing the First Appeal, challenging the order dated 30.09.2016 made in O.S.No.1 of 2011 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Thiruvallur @ Poonamalle.

2. The reason stated by the petitioner is that her husband was ill and he requires consistent medical attention. Thus, the petitioner was not in a position to contact her counsel and file the appeal suit. Further, it is stated that the learned counsel, who handled her case had fallen ill and therefore, she had to consult another lawyer for filing an appeal. However, such reasons are not substantiated and the petitioner has not filed any document or evidence to establish the said facts.

3. Merely stating certain reasons in the affidavit would be insufficient to condone the enormous delay in filing the appeal suit. No doubt, the Courts can take a lenient view in respect of meagre delay and if the delay is longer, then the reasons must be sufficient enough to condone the delay and the Courts are not expected to condone the long delay in a routine manner.

4. 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.

5. 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 contentions urged by the counsel for both sides.

6 to 11.......

12. On behalf of the revision petitioner, several decisions were cited. The learned counsel for the respondents objected for relying on the decisions by stating that they relate to condonation of delay in filing a petition and not with respect to condonation of delay in re-presenting a petition. Such an argument of the counsel for the respondents cannot be countenanced. Each and every case depends