Delay in filing appeals must be adequately justified, particularly by State parties; mere public interest claims do not absolve responsibility for substantial delays.

ORDER :

P.B. Balaji, J.

The appellants in an unnumbered AS.CFR.No.2445 of 2024 are the revision petitioners, aggrieved by the dismissal of their application for condonation of delay of 3879 days in filing the appeal against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.14 of 2013 dated 28.11.2013 on the file of the District Munsif, Palladam.

2.I have heard Mr.Ramanlaal, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr.T.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader for the petitioners and Mr.K.Govi Ganesan, learned counsel for the respondent.

3.Mr.Ramanlaal, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the petitioners would submit that though the delay may be huge in number, the trial Court has committed a serious error in decreeing the suit, contrary to the provisions of the Minor Inam Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1963. He would therefore state that the plaintiff, having lost his right to seek patta, cannot approach the civil Court and get a decree, which runs contrary to the provision of the said Act, as the property vests with the Government and the question of violation of the principles of natural justice will not apply in the facts of the present case, to enable the plaintiff to approach the civil Court and seek a decree in his favour.

4.Mr.Ramanlaal, learned Additional Advocate General would further state that public interest is involved in the matter since the property has already vested with the Government and therefore, the condone delay application should be considered liberally, especially, taking into account the fact that the Government is the appellant and laxity should be shown while approaching the delay application filed by the State. He would rely on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in M.N.Sugumaran (Died) and another Vs. The Special Commissioner, Chennai in CMP.No.26380 of 2024 dated 07.07.2025, where a delay of 6527 days in filing the writ appeal has been condoned by the Division Bench of this Court and also the decision of the Madurai Bench in The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. R.Ramanathan Chettiar (Died) and others in CMP(MD).No.1391 of 2023 dated 23.10.2025, where a delay of 11926 days has been condoned by the Madurai Bench of this Court. He would also state that this is also a fit case where this Court should not be carried away by the length of delay and the delay in preferring the appeal should be condoned, taking into account the larger issue involved and concerning the merits of the suit claim.

5.Per contra, Mr.K.Govi Ganesan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the suit was filed way back in 2009 in O.S.No.109 of 2009. The revision petitioners herein entered appearance and even filed the written statement in April 2010 and thereafter, the suit was transferred to the District Munsif Court, Palladam and renumbered as O.S.No.14 of 2013. The suit was thereafter decreed on merits, that is after contest on 28.11.2013. Based on the decree, the respondent approached the Tahsildar for issuance of patta. The Tahsildar, by proceedings dated 11.01.2017, rejected the application for patta, stating that the Government Pleader has been advised to file an appeal as against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.14 of 2013. Thereafter, the respondent moved this Court in WP.No.6597 of 2017, challenging the rejection of the application for patta by the Tahsildar. This Court, in the said WP, by order dated 27.01.2022, directed the Tahsildar to issue patta.

6.The learned counsel for the respondent would further contend that eve