The court emphasizes the importance of justifying delays in appeals while favoring resolution on merits over procedural defaults.

JUDGMENT

This first appeal challenges the order dated 05.10.2024 in I.A. No. 1 of 2024 in A.S. No. 26 of 2024 of the District Court, Thodupuzha.

2. Appellants were the respondents 2 to 4 and 7 to 21 in the said I.A. and the respondents were the petitioners therein.

3. I.A. No. 1 of 2024 was filed seeking to condone the 21 days delay in filing the above A.S. The District Court, vide the impugned order had condoned the said delay of 21 days on terms.

4. This appeal is filed by the appellant aggrieved by the said condonation of delay. It is contended that there existed no justifiable or legally tenable reason for condoning the delay and that the District Court ought to have dismissed the delay condonation petition outright.

5. Heard Sri. K.A. Augustine, Advocate, appearing for the appellants.

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the appeal has been filed only to harass his clients many of whom are senior citizens beyond the age of 80 years. The delay of 21 days in filing the appeal ought to have been validly explained by the respondents. The purported reason stated for the delay is that the certified copy of the preliminary decree issued from the court registry had been misplaced somewhere in the house of the respondents and it was not traceable as repair works were on in the residence. The certified copy was later retrieved from a bundle of papers after a few days. This caused a delay in contacting the lawyer and taking steps towards filing of the appeal.

7. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the reason stated for the delay is most perfunctory and baseless. No material has been produced to substantiate the same and the learned District Judge ought not have accepted the said reason and condoned the delay. It is mandatory that every day's delay ought to be explained with a valid reason. The reason stated is only concocted and unsubstantiated. There is negligence, delay and laches on the part of the respondents in filing the appeal. The learned District Judge ought to have found that the delay had not been properly explained and for the said reasons should have dismissed the delay condonation petition.

8. It is noted note that the District Court had taken into consideration of the contents of the afÏdavit and had concluded that there exist sufÏcient reasons to believe that the cause stated for the delay is genuine. It has been further stated by the District Judge that a lenient view could be taken and the delay of 21 days in filing the appeal is to be condoned subject to the payment of a cost of Rs. 210/- to the District Legal Services Authority.

9. Though I find force in the contention put forth by Advocate Sri. K.A. Augustine that there has been no day-to-day explanation of the delay that has been occasioned, in the facts and circumstances of this case, there is no reason to interfere with the condonation of 21 days delay by the District Court which is based on terms as stated above. Further, it is trite that justice is better served when a matter is decided on merits rather than on default. Hence I see no valid and tenable reason to interfere with the order dated 05.10.2024 in I.A. No.1 of 2024 rendered by the District Court.

10. However, I note that most of the appellants are senior citizens. Given their advanced age, many of whom are above 80, there exists an exceptional circumstance justifying a direction to the District Court, Thodupuzha, to endeavor to hear and dispose of A.S. No. 26 of 2024 pending before it as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months.

FAO is dismissed. No costs. All interlocutory applications stand closed.