Timeliness in legal proceedings is critical, and mere health claims must be substantiated with evidence to justify delays in filings; lack of sufficient cause leads to dismissal of condonation applications.

ORDER :

1. The above application has been filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 770 days in filing the second appeal against the judgment and decree made in A.S. No.133 of 2019, dated 13.10.2022 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.128 of 2015 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Tirunelveli, dated 11.01.2019.

2. The appellant as plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.128 of 2015, on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Tirunelveli, claiming the reliefs to declare that the suit property is belonging to the plaintiff and for consequential permanent injunction, restraining the defendant and his men from in any manner interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

3. The respondent/defendant filed a written statement and contested the suit. The learned I Additional District Munsif, Tirunelveli, after framing necessary issues and after full trial, passed the judgment, dated 11.01.2019, dismissing the suit. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S.No.133 of 2019 and the learned Principal Sub Judge, Tirunelveli, upon considering the materials available on record and on hearing the arguments of both the sides, passed the judgment and decree, dated 13.10.2022, dismissing the appeal and thereby confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Challenging the dismissal of the appeal, the plaintiff filed the present second appeal along with the above application to condone the delay of 770 days in filing the second appeal.

4. The case of the petitioner canvassed in the delay condonation petition is that after filing of the first appeal, the petitioner suffered heart disease and was taking treatment continuously and hence, he was not able to follow the first appeal; that the first appeal was heard and the same was dismissed on 13.10.2022, that the petitioner was taking treatment in Madurai Meenakshi Mission Hospital continuously and hence, he was not able to contact his Advocate and instructed him to apply for the copies of decree and judgment; that the petitioner underwent angio two times in the said hospital and is under medical care till now and hence, he was not able to take steps to file the second appeal in time; that the delay of 770 days in filing the second appeal is neither wilful nor wanton, but beyond the control and that the petitioner will be put to great hardship and loss, if the delay is not condoned.

5. The respondent filed a counter affidavit disputing the affidavit averments and further stated that there are concurrent findings of the fact by the Courts below against the petitioner; that the petitioner having suffered two reasoned judgments, has filed the present second appeal with an abnormal delay of 770 days, without assigning any valid, acceptable or bona fide reason; that the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation petition does not disclose any sufficient cause as contemplated under Section 5 of Limitation Act; that mere bald and vague averments cannot constitute sufficient cause; that the proposed second appeal does not involve any substantial question of law and is devoid of merits and that therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. The only point for consideration is whether the delay of 770 days in filing the second appeal, challenging the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.133 of 2019, dated 13.10.2022 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli, is liable to be condoned.?

7. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to