The court emphasized that a request for condoning a delay must be supported by credible evidence, reiterating strict adherence to limitation laws and principles of public policy that discourage undue delays in litigation.

ORDER :

K. Murali Shankar, J.

The above petition has been filed, invoking Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 520 days in filing the Second Appeal, challenging the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.43 of 2022, dated 21.09.2023, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.363 of 2013, dated 19.04.2022, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli.

2. The petitioner/appellant, as plaintiff, filed a suit in O.S.No.363 of 2013, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli claiming permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from in any manner forming a road or interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of II schedule suit property and also for mandatory injunction directing the closure of house frontyard situated in the II schedule of suit property. The respondents/respondents/defendants filed their written statement and contested the suit. The learned Principal District Munsif, after framing necessary issues and after full trial, passed the judgment and decree dated 19.04.2022, dismissing the suit. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S.No.43 of 2022 and the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli, upon considering the materials available on record and on hearing the arguments of both sides, passed the judgment and decree dated 21.09.2023, dismissing the appeal and thereby confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Challenging the dismissal of the appeal, the plaintiff has filed the present appeal along with the above application to condone the delay of 520 days in filing the Second Appeal.

3. The case of the petitioner canvassed in the delay condonation petition is that after the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.43 of 2022, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli, the petitioner had to discuss all the members of the Trust and had to get consent from the members of the Trust to proceed legally further to prefer the Second Appeal, that subsequently funds were mobilised for filing the appeal and in the meantime, there occurred a delay of 520 days in filing the appeal, that the delay is neither wilful nor wanton, but due to the unfortunate circumstances stated above and that the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and hardship if the delay is not condoned.

4. The respondents filed their counter affidavit disputing the affidavit averments and further stated that the petitioner has not produced any minutes of the Trust Board meeting or when the Trust Board meetings were held, that the first appeal was dismissed on 21.09.2023, but the Second Appeal was filed only in July 2025, that the petitioner has not mentioned any other sufficient reasons for the huge delay, that the reasons given are not bonafide and the delay has not at all been explained, that the affidavit of the petitioner is very bald and sketchy, that the petitioner has not stated as to how many meetings took place for deciding the issue and how many members had participated in the meetings, that the administrative reasons cannot be taken as sufficient cause so as to attract Section 5 of the Limitation Act , that the petitioner's another reason for the delay is that the mobilisation of money for filing the Second Appeal is also not in consonance with the financial status of the petitioner Trust, that the petitioner is a Trust having huge amount in the Bank account and they are transacting regularly, that the Trust is having