A litigant cannot obtain condonation of delay by shifting the entire blame onto their advocate or providing inconsistent and false explanations. The discretionary power to condone delay requires the party to show bona fides, consistent facts, and substantial cause, failing which the court will not grant relief.

ORDER :

N. MALA, J.

Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order of M.P.No.3 of 2025 to condone the delay of 69 days in filing the R.C.A.Sr.No.8334 of 2025 passed by the VII Judge, Small Causes Court at Chennai.

2.The parties will be adverted to as per their ranking before the lower Appellate Court.

3.The gist of the facts necessary for disposal of the Civil Revision Petition are as follows:

The respondent filed R.C.O.P.No.1806 of 2013 against the judgement debtors for eviction. The Rent Control Court by its judgment and decree dated 16.07.2015, allowed the eviction petition. The judgment debtor preferred appeal in R.C.A.No.395 of 2015 challenging the eviction order and the same was allowed on 16.03.2017. The respondent aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the RCA, preferred Civil Revision Petition before this Court in CRP.Nos.2344 and 2345 of 2017 and the same was allowed on 02.12.2021, restoring the eviction order in R.C.O.P.No.1806 of 2013. Whileso, the respondent filed execution petition in E.P.No.275 of 2021 for execution of the eviction order on 22.03.2021. During the pendency of the execution petition, some settlement talks were undergone, which however did not fructify. The petitioner filed E.A.Nos. 2 and 3 of 2024 in E.P.No.275 of 2021, to implead himself in the EP and to recall the delivery order respectively. On 04.03.2025, both the E.As were dismissed. The petitioner preferred CRP.No.1652 of 2025, against the dismissal of E.A.No.2 of 2025 and the same was dismissed on 07.08.2025. Thereafter, on 02.04.2025, the respondent filed E.A.No.4 of 2025, for removal of obstruction made by the petitioner. The petitioner filed a counter and contested the EA which was finally allowed on merits on 19.08.2025. Thereafter, on 12.09.2025, the rented premises was delivered to the respondent by the bailiff. The petitioner thereafter filed petition under Order XXI Rule 99 of CPC and the same was dismissed on 17.09.2025, on the ground of maintainability. On the same day, E.P.No.275 of 2021 was terminated recording satisfactory delivery. Thereafter, on 22.09.2025, CRP.No.4639 of 2025 was filed by the petitioner challenging the dismissal of the petition under Order XXI Rule 99 of  CPC. Immediately thereafter, on 24.09.2025, the petitioner filed R.C.A.Sr.No.8334 of 2025 along with the condone delay application. The petitioner filed M.P.No.1 of 2025 to condone the delay of 31 days in challenging the order in E.A.No.4 of 2025 dated 19.08.2025. M.P.No.1 of 2025, to condone the delay of 31 days in filing the appeal, was later withdrawn on the objection of the respondent that no reasons were assigned for the delay by filing M.P.No.2 of 2025. M.P.No.2 of 2025 was allowed with liberty to file a fresh petition.Thereafter, the petitioner filed M.P.No.3 of 2025, to condone the delay of 69 days in filing the appeal against the E.A.No.4 of 2025 dated 19.08.2025. The said petition was dismissed on 05.12.2025. Aggrieved by the dismissal of M.P.No.3 of 2025, the petitioner has filed above Civil Revision Petition.

4.The petitioner in support of the condone delay petition in M.P.No.3 of 2025 stated that he had handed over the papers to his counsel for filing the appeal, but to his shock and surprise, the appeal was not filed, despite assurance that it would be filed. The petitioner further stated that only on the day of eviction, he came to know that appeal was not filed by his counsel and therefore he lodged a complaint against the counsel before the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry and only thereafter filed the appeal. The petitioner further stated that due to uncertainty regarding the Court before which the appea