The court emphasized a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' for condoning delays in appeals, balancing justice with the rights of parties involved.

ORDER :

K.Murali Shankar, J.

The Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed seeking orders to condone the delay of 1266 days in preferring the appeal, challenging the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.60 of 2016 dated 14.03.2018 on the file of the Principal District Court, Karur.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner filed a suit for specific performance, that after trial, the suit was dismissed on 14.03.2018, that the petitioner instructed his trial Court Advocate Clerk to take two sets of certified copies of the judgment and decree and accordingly, he applied for two sets in C.A.Nos.1579 and 1580 of 2018 on 16.03.2018, that the copies were made ready in C.A.No.1580 of 2018 on 28.08.2018 and delivered on 28.08.2018, that another copy application in C.A.No.1579 of 2018 was made ready on 29.08.2018 and delivered on 30.08.2018, that the petitioner has also applied for printed copies of the judgment and decree in C.A.No.1578 of 2018, that the petitioner due to his ill-health was not able to prefer an appeal immediately, that the petitioner contacted the respondents/defendants for amicable settlement and even expressed his willingness to pay more sale consideration but all his efforts went in vain, that the petitioner filed an appeal with certified copies of the judgment and decree obtained in C.A.No.1580 of 2018 before this Court during Covid-19 pandemic period on 10.11.2020 through physical filing (dropping in the box), that filing slip with the seal of this Court was given to his Advocate on record, that the said appeal filed in A.S.(MD)SR.No. 44226 of 2020 along with delay condonation petition were returned by the Registry for compliance of minor ministerial mistakes, that the petitioner's Advocate Clerk had taken back the returned bundles and misplaced the same during Covid-19 pandemic period, that the petitioner came to know this fact only when he approached his Advocate in November-2022 and their efforts to trace out the returned bundles ended in failure, that the petitioner having left with no other option has presented the present appeal suit with certified copies obtained in C.A.No.1579 of 2018 and as such, there occurred delay of 1266 days from 14.03.2018 till the filing of the above petition, that the delay occurred is neither willful nor wanton, that the petitioner apart from payment of Rs.36,000/- towards Court fee in A.S. (MD)SR.No.44226 of 2020, has again paid Court fee of Rs.36,000/- in the present appeal and that therefore, the delay occurred in filing the appeal may be condoned, otherwise, the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and immense hardship.

3. The second respondent has filed a counter statement raising objections, whereunder, it has been stated that despite receiving the copies of the judgment as earlier as on 29.08.2018, the petitioner did not file an appeal till 10.11.2020, that the petitioner has failed to provide any explanation regarding his illness or the treatment undertaken, that the petitioner even after filing the appeal demonstrated the negligence in not re-presenting the appeal papers, that the delay has not been adequately explained by the petitioner and that therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get the delay condoned.

4. The second respondent in her counter statement has further stated that the petitioner cannot succeed even on appeal before this Court because the delay itself indicates his lack of readiness and willingness, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act , that the suit sale agreement dated 26.08.2013 specifies a sale consideration of Rs.12 lakhs, with an advance payment of Rs.11.50 lakhs and Rs.50,000/- is shown as balance due, that the performance period is fixed as two years without any justified reasons, that mere examination of the above dates clearly indicates that the suit sale agreement is a fabricated document, that the trial Court has rightly concluded that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief o