IMPORTANT POINT
Law of Limitation cannot be diluted by condoning enormous delay, wherein there is no sufficient reasons are furnished.

ORDER (COMMON)

CMP No.2179 of 2023 is filed to condone the delay of 1781 days in filing the appeal suit against the judgment and decree passed in OS No.46 of 2014 dated 12.12.2018.

2. AS SR No.6826 of 2023 is filed under Section 96 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2018 made in OS No.46 of 2014 on the file of the District Judge Court No.II, Kancheepuram.

3. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit and the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. The suit was instituted for recovery of money and based on the promissory note. The suit was decreed in favour of the respondent-plaintiff on 12.12.2018. However, the Appeal Suit against the decree has been instituted with the delay of 1781 days.

4. The reason stated by the petitioner is that the learned counsel, appearing for him before the Trial Court, failed to inform him about the decree passed by the Court on 12.12.2018. He informed about the decree only on 21.12.2021 and in the meanwhile, the decree-holder filed EP No.95 of 2019 on 09.04.2019.

5. It is not made clear whether the petitioner has received summons in the execution proceedings in the year 2019. While-so, the earlier statement made by the petitioner that he received information from the learned counsel on 21.12.2021, cannot be trusted upon.

6. Perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the CMP No.2179 of 2023 reveals that there is no candid reason for the purpose of condoning the enormous delay of 1781 days.

7. Uncondonable delay cannot be condoned in a routine manner by the Courts. Law of Limitation is substantive and the Rule is to institute the proceedings within the time limit prescribed under the enactment.

8. Condonation of delay is an exception. The Courts while exercising the powers of discretion is expected to exercise judiciously and enormous delay in instituting the proceedings can be condoned only if the reasons are substantiated and acceptable. Insufficient reasons cannot be considered for the purpose of condoning the long delay.

9. No doubt, the Courts may take a lenient view by condoning the long delay in filing proceedings. In the event of condoning long delay, the rights of the other parties are prejudiced and the other party, who secured the decree few years back cannot be in a position to contest the case after long delay. Thus the Courts are not expected to condone the long delay in a mechanical manner. Law of Limitation cannot be diluted by condoning the enormous delay, wherein there is no sufficient reasons are furnished.

10. The legal principles to be followed for condoning the delay is well settled and this Court also considered the said principles in C.M.P.Nos.8358 & 8359 of 2018 in AS.SR.No.32087 of 2018 dated 09.12.2019 and the relevant paragraphs are extracted as under:—

“10. In respect of said contentions, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent cited the judgment of this Court in the case of Zulaiha Syed Mohideen Vs. D.Visalakshi Ammal & Others reported in MANU/TN/2222/2013, wherein the Court made following observations;—

“5. Before going into the merits of the case, first of all, it should be stated that in a case of this nature for condonation of delay, it is well settled that length of delay is not material, but the reasons stated thereof for condonation of delay. In other words, for condonation of delay, the reasons adduced must be properly pleaded, convincing and acceptable and explanation should be offered for condonation of the delay. Unless proper explanation is offered, the Courts could not exercise its discretion in the proper perspective to advance substantial justice. It is also settled that when a court has exercised its discretionary power to condone the delay, the appellate Court, in exercise of its discretion, should not ordinarily interfere with such decision unless the discretion exercised is arbitrary and overlooking the interest accrued to another party to the dispute. The appellate Court should also see whether the trial court h