Delay in filing a second appeal cannot be condoned without sufficient cause; administrative reasons and natural calamities must be substantiated with evidence.

ORDER :

K.MURALI SHANKAR, J.

The above application has been filed under Order XLI, Rule 3(A) of C.P.C. , to condone the delay of 4863 days in filing the second appeal, challenging the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.15 of 2007, dated 18.06.2008 on the file of the Additional District Court, Thoothukudi, reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.9 of 2005, dated 10.01.2006 on the file of the Sub Court, Kovilpatti.

2.The respondent as plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.9 of 2005, claiming the reliefs to declare that the suit properties are belonging to the plaintiff and for consequential permanent injunction, restraining the defendant and their men from in any manner interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

3.The petitioner/defendant filed a written statement and contested the suit. The learned Subordinate Judge, Kovilpatti, after framing necessary issues and after full trial, passed the judgment, dated 10.01.2006, dismissing the suit. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S.No.15 of 2007 and the learned Additional District Judge, Thoothukudi, upon considering the materials available on record and on hearing the arguments of both the sides, passed the judgment and decree, dated 18.06.2008, allowing the appeal and thereby setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and granted the reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction as prayed for by the plaintiff. Challenging the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court, the defendant, who is the Government of Tamil Nadu represented by the District Collector, Thoothukudi, filed the present second appeal along with the above application to condone the delay of 4863 days in filing the second appeal.

4. The case of the petitioner canvassed in the delay condonation petition is that after the disposal of the first appeal, the respondent/plaintiff had initiated various proceedings before the Revenue authorities for grant of patta; that the respondent has also filed number of writ petitions, seeking directions to consider her representations claiming patta for the suit property and that since the officials of the petitioner/defendant were grappling with number proceedings before various authorities, they could not prefer the second appeal within the stipulated time.

5.It is their further case that the property in question was used for conducting sports events by the members of Adi-Dravidar Community and this situation has escalated in sensitivity, placing the Revenue Authorities in a precarious position due to potential for conflict; that the Adi-Dravidar community has a history of organizing numerous sports events at the said location, thereby establishing a pattern that may complicate property rights and claims; that the officials have been compelled to invest considerable time and resources into identifying a viable solution that addresses the competing interests while mitigating the risk of law and order issues and this necessity for intervention reflects the broader implications of property disputes in community contexts, highlighting the need for a thorough examination of the facts and circumstances surrounding the claims; that there is a delay of 4863 days in filing the second appeal and the said delay is neither wilful nor wanton and due to the above said administrative reasons, Covid-19 and other natural calamity, namely, flood in Thoothukudi and that the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and untold hardship, if the delay is not condoned.

6. It