Delay in representing appeals cannot be condoned without sufficient cause; failure to explain inordinate delay reflects gross negligence, warranting dismissal.

ORDER :

1. Both petitions have been filed seeking orders to condone the delay of 1155 days in representing the Second Appeals in S.A.(MD)SR Nos.22630 of 2012 and 22631 of 2012 against the common judgment and decrees made in A.S.Nos.103 of 2009 and 105 of 2009, dated 19.01.2012, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Dindigul, confirming the common judgment and decrees passed in O.S.Nos.157 of 2006 and 158 of 2006, dated 30.09.2009, on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Natham, Dindigul District.

2. The petitioners herein filed a suit in O.S.No.157 of 2006 (O.S.No.501 of 2000) on the file of the District Munsif Court, Dindigul, claiming the reliefs of declaration and consequential permanent injunction and the first respondent herein filed a suit in O.S.No.158 of 2006 (O.S.No.432 of 2000), on the file of the District Munsif Court, Dindigul claiming the reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction and after joint trial in both the suits, the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Natham passed a common judgment dated 30.09.2009, decreeing the suit in O.S.No.158 of 2006 as prayed for and dismissing the sui in O.S.No.157 of 2006. Challenging the above said common judgment and decrees, the petitioners preferred two appeals in A.S.Nos.103 of 2009 and 105 of 2009 and the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, upon considering the materials available on record and on hearing the arguments of both sides, passed the common judgment and decrees dated 19.01.2012, dismissing the appeals and thereby confirming the common judgment and decrees passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeals, the petitioners have filed the above two Second Appeals.

3. It is not in dispute that the Second Appeals were filed on 04.06.2012 and the same were returned by the Registry on 05.06.2012 directing compliance of the defects pointed out therein. It is evident from the records that the petitioners filed the above petitions on 26.10.2015 to condone the delay of 1155 days in representing the Second Appeals. It is further evident that the Second Appeals in SR., stage were listed on 10.08.2016 under the caption “Appeal Examiners Section default cases” and this Court passed an order extending the time for complying the defects pointed out by the Registry till 24.08.2016, failing which the SR., would be rejected automatically and struck off from the file and that since the defects were not rectified, both the Second Appeals in SR stage were dismissed for default.

4. It is further evident that the petitioners filed petition in C.M.P.(MD)Nos.7465 of 2022 and 7466 of 2022 seeking to condone the delay of 2155 days in filing the applications to restore the Second Appeals in SR stage in S.A.(MD)SR Nos.22630 of 2012 and 22631 of 2012 and a learned Judge of this Court passed a conditional order directing payment of costs and since the conditions were complied with, the petitions were allowed. The petitioners' applications to restore the Second Appeals at SR stage in C.M.P.(MD)Nos.5416 of 2024 and 5417 of 2024 were allowed by this Court vide order dated 15.04.2024 and that thereafter, the above applications to condone the delay in representing the papers came to be numbered.

5. The reason canvassed in the delay condation petitions is that since the case bundles were mixed with other case bundles, the appeals in S.A.(MD)SR Nos.22630 of 2012 and 22631 of 2012 could not be represented in time, that the printed copies of the judgments of the Courts below were also not obtained from the Advocates, who appeared in the Courts below, that the cas