ORDER :

The delay of 1557 days is sought to be condoned in the present civil miscellaneous petition in filing the Appeal Suit. The Appeal Suit was filed against the judgment and decree passed in the O.S.No.185 of 2014 dated 16.11.2017.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the learned counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner before the Trial Court one Mr. K. Dharmalingham died on 17.12.2020 and therefore, the petitioner is unable to file an Appeal before the Court at Chennai. It is further contended that the said lawyer had not informed about the filing of an Appeal in spite of the fact that the petitioner instructed the counsel to file an Appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents objected the said reason by stating that the respondents filed an Appeal Suit in A.S.No.520 of 2018 against the very same judgment and decree in O.S.No.185 of 2014 and the said Appeal Suit, the petitioner herein has already engaged a lawyer, who in turn appeared on behalf of the petitioner. While so, the very reason stated that the lawyer has not informed regarding filing of the Appeal to the petitioner is incorrect and therefore, the reason is false.

4. Flimsy reasons cannot be a ground for condoning the long delay of 1557 days in filing the Appeal Suit. 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.

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 countena