ORDER :

CMP No.17880 of 2021 is filed under Order 41, Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure to condone the delay 356 days in filing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 12.04.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Coimbatore in OS No.823 of 2004.

2. AS SR No.73050 of 2006 is filed under Section 96 r/w Order 41, Rule 1 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 12.04.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Coimbatore in OS No.823 of 2004.

3. The Trial Court passed the judgment and decree in OS No.823 of 2004 on 12.04.2005 and the Appeal Suit was instituted with a delay of 356 days. There was a consistent delay in pursuing the Appeal Suit filed by the appellant before the High Court Registry. The delay occurred at the stage when the case papers were returned by the High Court Registry and there was a delay of 2231 days in re-presenting the case papers by the appellant.

4. Again the case papers were returned by the High Court Registry on the ground that there was a deficit of Court Fee and even for complying with the said defect, the appellant took further delay of 2245 days in paying the deficit Court Fee.

5. Altogether, the appeal filed in the year 2006 is not even numbered till today and even now now it is posted for condoning the delay of 356 days in filing the Appeal Suit after a lapse of about 17 years from the date of passing of the decree in OS No.823 of 2004.

6. The reason stated by the appellant for condoning the delay is that he could not contact his counsel on account of his illness and as per Doctor's advise, he was undergoing continuous treatment. However, such reason has not been substantiated. 7. Condonation of delay is an exception. Law of Limitation is substantive. The Courts are expected to exercise the powers of discretion judiciously. Long delay can be condoned only if the reasons are sufficient enough but not otherwise. Thus unexplained delay cannot be condoned by the Courts in a mechanical manner, which would undoubtedly cause greater prejudice to the interest of the opposite party.

8. Reasons are live-link for condoning enormous delay. In the absence of valid reason, Court would not condone the long delay in filing the appeals. Law of limitation is substantive. Thus, an Appeal is to be filed within the time prescribed under the Statutes. Condonation of delay is an exception. Thus, the Courts are expected to exercise the power of discretion judiciously and by recording reasons. Mechanical approach in condoning the delay would undoubtedly cause prejudice to the interest of the other party.

9. The legal principles to be followed for condoning the delay is well settled and this Court also 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 t