ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 02.01.2020 in I.A.No.20 of 2019 in Unnumbered A.S in CFR

No.10020 of 2017 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Erode.

2. Brief facts which are necessary to decide this petition are as follows:

The Revision Petitioner as the Plaintiff had filed O.S.No.149 of 2013

on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Sathyamangalam, Erode District for the relief of partition against his brother, mother and aunt. After trial the suit was partly decreed in favour of the Plaintiff. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree granting decree in part. The Revision Petitioner herein filed an appeal. The appeal memorandum was returned for deficit Court Fees. The Petitioner had paid Court Fees as per the earlier Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act. The appeal memorandum was returned defective based on the amended Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act. The Petitioner had not contacted his counsel due to jaundice. Sometime in 2019, he contacted his counsel regarding the appeal preferred by the Petitioner. The learned counsel had stated that the appeal memorandum was returned defective due to deficit Court Fee. Only after payment of sufficient Court Fee the same will be numbered. Therefore, he had immediately arranged for the Court Fees by this time. There was a delay of 401 days in representing the petition for payment of deficit Court Fees. Therefore, the petition preferred by the Petitioner as Appellant in I.A.No.20 of 2019 in Unnumbered A.S in CFR No.10020 of 2017 was dismissed by the learned Principal District Judge, Erode. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner as Appellant had approached this Court by filing this Civil Revision Petition under Article

227 of the Constitution of India.

3. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner submitted that this Revision Petition has been filed by the plaintiff before the Learned Principal District Judge, Erode and had filed a petition I.A.No.20 of 2019 in unnumbered A.S.in C.F.R.No.10020 of 2017 to condone the delay of 401 days in submitting sufficient stamp papers in the

Appeal Suit.

3.1. The learned Judge had dismissed the petition by observing as follows :-

“9. The petitioner has simply averred in his affidavit that the delay is due to jaundice, the treatment and his age. Absolutely no evidence is produced to shw these averments before this Court. From the counter of 1st respondent it is understood that already an appeal has been presented and the delay excuse petition has been allowed on 24.11.2017 in I.A.No.59 of 2017 by this Court on payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- by the petitioner's side.

10. Further, the petitioner has stated in his affidavit that he met his Advocate only on 09.01.2019 and then only he came to know the fact that the appeal was returned for insufficiency of Court fee stamp papers and immediately he paid the necessary Court fee. But, on perusal of records, the Court fee stamp paper was purchased as early as on 12.10.2018, that is three months prior to the date of knowledge of the petitioner as alleged by him. Hence, it is clear that the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands. So, the entire attitude of the petitioner shows that he is interested only in filing delay condonation applications without taking proper steps to take the appeal on file. No sufficient or satisfactory reason is adhered to by the petitioner to condone the delay when it has become the habit for the appellant to keep silent for a long time and then coming forward with such delay condonation petition, I am not inclined to allow the petition and the point is answered accordingly.”

3.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited attention of this

Court to the affidavit filed by the petitioner herein and had stated that he was suffering from Jaundice and he could not present the stamp papers in time before the Court.

3.3. The learned Judge had dismissed the petition stating that he had purchased the Court fee stam