ORDER :

The civil miscellaneous petition is filed to condone the delay of 1335 days in filing the Appeal Suit against the judgment and decree dated 05.09.2017 passed in O.S.No.27 of 2007.

2. The reasons sated in the affidavit filed in support of the civil miscellaneous petition reveals that the petitioner engaged Mr. P. Kuppusamy, Advocate at Kallakurichi for conducting the Suit. His clerk one Mr. Ramakrishnan, after the dismissal of the Suit on 05.09.2017 received a some of Rs.1000/- from the petitioner for getting the certified copy of the decree and judgment from the Trial Court. However, he has not obtained the certified copy in time and therefore, the petitioner could not file an Appeal. It is further contended that the petitioner could not contact the learned counsel Mr. P. Kuppusamy, who appeared for him in the Suit.

3. The communication between the lawyer and the litigant is privileged communication and such communications cannot be considered by the Court for the purpose of condoning the long delay of 1335 days in filing an Appeal. The reasons must be substantive and in the absence of any such evidence to establish the reasons, the Court cannot condone the long delay in a mechanical manner. Even in cases, where there is a long delay in getting the certified copy from the Courts, the delay on the part of the Court Registry or otherwise must be established through documents and evidence and by furnishing dates and events. Mere statement, in this regard or communication between the lawyer and litigant, would not be a sufficient ground for the purpose of condoning the long delay.

4. No doubt, if there is a meagre delay, Court can take a lenient view to condone the same. However, the long delay in filing an Appeal would cause prejudice to the interest of the opposite party and thus, the Courts are expected to condone the delay only if the reasons are sufficient enough to condone and genuine.

5. 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.

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