ORDER :

C.M.P.No.10433 of 2022 is filed under Order 41 Rule 3A of the Civil Procedure Code, to condone the delay of 592 days in filing the First Appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 21.12.2017 passed in O.S.No.672 of 2011 on the file of the I Additional District Judge at Coimbatore.

A.S.Sr.No.3970 of 2022 is filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 21.12.2017 passed in O.S.No.672 of 2011 on the file of the I Additional District Judge at Coimbatore.

The civil miscellaneous petition is filed to condone the delay of 592 days in filing the Appeal Suit against the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2017 passed in O.S.No.672 of 2011.

2. The Appeal has been filed after five years from the date of passing of the decree in the Suit. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the preliminary decree was passed on 21.12.2017 in the Suit and subsequently, the final decree was passed in the partition Suit on 25.11.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner has chosen to file the Appeal Suit with a delay of 592 days.

3. The reasons stated by the petitioner in the accompanying affidavit filed in support of the present civil miscellaneous petition is that the learned counsel obtained judgment and decree copy in the year 2018 and the petitioner had not collected the certified copy of the order. It is further stated that the petitioner do not know any advocate in Chennai and requested the learned counsel, who appeared before the Trial Court and subsequently, filed an Appeal Suit.

4. Such a reason is not only flimsy, but cannot be trusted upon. Merely stating a reason for the purpose of condoning the delay would be insufficient for the Court to consider the same. Reasons are the live-link for condoning the long delay. Therefore, such reasons must not only be genuine but also substantive. Casual way of condoning the delay would cause prejudice to the other party and the Courts are expected to condone the delay only when the parties are able to establish some genuinity for filing an Appeal after the period of limitation.

5. Mechanically condoning the long delay would derail the system. Casual approach in the matter of preferring an Appeal, at no circumstances, be encouraged. No doubt, in respect of meagre delay, Court can take a lenient view. However, for long delay, such lenient view is certainly impermissible and in the event of any such lenient view in condoning the long delay, the very sanctity of the law of limitation will be diluted. Thus, the long delay cannot be condoned.

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