JUDGMENT

C.M.P. No.18339 of 2021 in A.S. Sr. No. 41805 of 2021 This petition is filed to condone the delay of 655 days in preferring the above appeal against the final decree and judgment dated

01.03.2018 made in I.A. No.163 of 2013 in O.S. No.371 of 2008.

2. The petitioner in this petition is the first defendant in the suit in O.S. No.371 of 2018. The respondents in this petition, as plaintiffs, filed a suit in O.S. No.371 of 2018 for partition and separate possession of their 3/4th share in the suit property. It is to be seen that the petitioner, in the written statement, opposed the relinquishment of one half share by the second defendant in favour of the plaintiffs by a document dated 28.12.2005. It is admitted that a preliminary decree was passed in the suit on 22.01.2013. As per the preliminary decree, the plaintiffs were entitled to 3/4th share in the suit property which is measuring an extent of one ground and 1278 sq.ft. in Aadambakkam Village, Kancheepuram District. It is admitted that the preliminary decree has become final and the appeal as against the preliminary decree filed by the petitioner in A.S. No.190 of 2013 was also dismissed on 07.08.2017. Thereafter, the respondent plaintiffs filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A. No.163 of 2013 for passing of final decree. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed in I.A. No.163 of 2013. The Commissioner filed a report along with a detailed plan suggesting the mode of partition as per the preliminary decree. It is to be noted that the division of suit property suggested by the Commissioner was also on the basis of valuation of both building and vacant land. As against the final decree that was passed on 01.03.2018, the petitioner has preferred the above appeal with an inordinate delay of 655 days in filing the appeal. The question is whether the petitioner has shown sufficient cause for the delay in preferring the above appeal.

3. In the affidavit filed in support of this petition, the petitioner has stated that the petitioner has tripped in the stair case and fell down and that his right leg got broken. It is stated that due to the injury caused to the petitioner, he was immobilised. Though the petitioner admit that he had undergone treatment for fracture in his leg, it is stated that the petitioner's treatment took enormous time to become normal. He also stated in the affidavit that the National Lockdown announced during March 2020 due to spreading of Corona has also resulted in delay of 655 days in preferring the appeal.

4. It is seen that the appeal was presented only in April 2021. It is admitted that the respondent plaintiffs have filed an Execution Petition in E.P. No.9 of 2018. Notice in the Execution Petition was also issued to the revision petitioners and the Execution Petition was adjourned for filing counter by the revision petitioners from 12.11.2018. Despite the execution petition was filed in the year 2018, the revision petitioners are taking time to file counter. The above appeal was filed with a delay of almost two years. Except the injury suffered by the petitioner, no other valid reason is stated by the petitioner to condone the inordinate delay of nearly two years in preferring the appeal. When the preliminary decree passed in the suit for partition has become final, the petitioner has now filed an appeal with an inordinate delay of 655 days only on the ground that he was taking treatment for the fracture in his leg. No document is filed to show that the petitioner suffered such fracture or that he was taking treatment for such a long time. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, it is stated that the petitioner has filed the appeal itself to prolong the litigation without any cause or reason for the delay. As pointed out earlier, the preliminary decree passed on 22.01.2013 has become final. The issue that was raised by the petitioner in the memorandum of grounds opposing the final decree is regarding valuation. It is contended by the