The judgment establishes the necessity of satisfactorily explaining delays in appeals, particularly when prior claims on property are legally justified.

ORDER

The above petition is filed for condoning the delay of 1072 days in filing the second appeal.

2.The reason given for the delay is that after the appeal filed by the appellants herein was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge, Ranipet on 20.02.2019, the printed copy of the judgment and decree was applied only in November 2019. The appellants would submit that their father, Gopal, who was the sole defendant had fallen ill and was not in a position to contact his counsel for further proceedings. Thereafter, on 23.03.2020, the national lock down was imposed from 23.03.2020 on account of the covid pandemic. This was also a reason for the sole defendant being unable to pursue the matter further. Thereafter, he passed away on 29.04.2022 leaving behind the appellants herein as his legal representatives. They had thereafter contacted their counsel and obtained the copies and instructed the present counsel for filing the second appeal. As a result of which, the delay has crept in.

3.A counter has been filed by the respondent-Municipality inter-

alia contending that the very institution of the suit is by suppression of facts. The suit O.S.No.55 of 2015, instituted on the file of the District Munsif, Walajapet, from out of which the present second appeal emanates, was filed by the respondent-Municipality for declaring the ex- parte decree which the sole defendant had obtained in a suit O.S.No.46 of 2006 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and for an injunction restraining the defendant his men, agents and servants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

4.The suit O.S.No.46 of 2006 had been filed by the defendant for a declaration that the suit property belongs to him and for recovery of possession. The appellants had suppressed the fact that the deceased defendant had already executed a gift deed in respect of a suit property in favour of the respondent herein (This gift deed has been marked as Ex.A1 in the present proceedings). The respondent would further submit that although the suit was decreed on 20.02.2019, the deceased defendant had obtained the certified copy of the judgement and decree only in November 2019, i.e nearly six months after the judgement was pronounced. There is no explanation as to why the steps were not taken to file an appeal particularly when the locked down had kicked in only a year later in March 2020. The sole defendant had passed away on 29.04.2022, i.e three years after the decree in A.S.No.7 of 2017 had been pronounced Even thereafter, there has been a delay and the appeal has come to be filed only on 29.07.2022. Therefore, the respondent would submit that the delay, apart from being inordinate, has not been properly explained.

5.The learned counsel for the appellants would primarily base his argument on the point that the very filing of the suit was bad in law in as much as the respondent Municipality which instituted the suit for declaring the decree obtained in an earlier suit as null and void, has not chosen to implead all the parties to the proceedings and therefore, the suit has to be rejected on the ground of non joinder of necessary parties. He had also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1964 SC 1889 [Rup Chand Gupta Vs. Raghuvanshi Private Limited and Another].

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-Municipality would reiterate the contents of the counter and state that the earlier suit is not only collusive but also filed by suppressing the true facts.

7.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

8.In the background of above submissions, it would make useful reading to refer to the facts which has culminated in filing of this petition. The suit which is the subject matter of the present second appeal has been filed to declare the judgment and decree that the respondent had obtained an ex-parte decree in O.S.No.46 of 2006 on the file of this Court, as nul