The delay in filing applications must be substantiated with sufficient cause, otherwise, the court may dismiss the request for restoration.

ORDER

The revision petitioner is the petitioner in O.P.(Electricity) No.215/2008 on the files of the Additional District Court-I, Kollam, which was filed under Sections 10 and 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act , 1885 read with Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act , 1910, seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the 1st respondent- Corporation, for the trees cut and removed from his property for the purpose of drawing 400 kV electric line/ erecting tower from Madurai to Thiruvananthapuram. The said petition was dismissed for default by order dated 01.07.2011 for non-representation and for non-production of documents. The petitioner filed I.A. No.692/2017 under Order IX Rule 9 and Section 151 CPC to restore the original petition and I.A. No.693/2017 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 2082 days in filing the restoration application. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he had sent a letter to the petitioner directing him to appear before the Court on 01.07.2011 for adducing evidence, and since the petitioner did not receive the said letter, he could not appear before the Court on that date, resulting in the original petition being dismissed for default. It was further contended that there was no wilful default on the part of the petitioner in not appearing before the Court and that the delay may be condoned and the original petition be restored to file.

2. The learned District Judge observed that the OP (Ele.) itself was filed three years after the petitioner received compensation from the respondent, but it was not accompanied by any petition to condone the delay in filing the same. The learned District Judge found the petitioner’s explanation that he did not receive the advocate’s letter insufficient, as it may explain his absence on 01.07.2011 but does not account for the remaining 2,082 days of delay in filing the restoration application. The learned District Judge also observed that the affidavit filed in support of the application to condone the delay is sworn to and signed by the petitioner, but the statements therein are as if they were made by the counsel, and therefore the Court cannot rely on such an affidavit. The learned District Judge found that the petitioner had not properly explained the delay and therefore dismissed I.A. No. 693/17 filed for condonation of delay of 2,082 days. Since the delay was not condoned, I.A. No. 692/17 for restoration was also dismissed. Challenging the order in I.A. No. 693/17 and I.A. No. 692/17 in O.P.(Electricity) No.215/2008, this revision petition is filed.

3. Heard Sri. P. Pratheesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Millu Dandapani, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent Corporation and the learned Government Pleader.

4. Sri. Pratheesh contended that the learned District Judge ought to have passed an award on merits rather than dismissing the original petition for default. He further contended that though sufficient cause was shown for condoning the delay, the learned District Judge failed to appreciate the same.

5. The learned District Judge found that the casual and vague explanation offered for the delay of 2,082 days in filing the application for restoration was unsatisfactory. InUniversity of Delhi v. Union of India and others [2019 KHC 7261 : 2020 (13) SCC 745] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that even though each day's delay need not be explained, a reasonable and acceptable explanation is very much necessary. The petitioner has not given reasonable and acceptable explanation for the inordinate delay. He has contested the case in a lackadaisical manner and failed to show sufficient cause to condone the delay. The learned District