IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16.11.2023 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CMP No.17620 of 2023 and OSA (CAD) No.95469 of 2023 S.Ramesh ... Petitioner Vs.

K.Suresh Prabhu ... Respondent Prayer in CMP No.17620 of 2023: Civil miscellaneous petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 284 days in filing the appeal in OSA(cad)SR No.95469 of 2023 against the judgment and decree passed by this Court in C.S.(comm.div.) No.183/2020, dated 17.08.2022.

Prayer in OSA (CAD) SR No.95469 of 2023: Original side appeal filed under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act r/w Order XXXVI Rule 1 of CPC to set aside the judgment and decree dated 17.08.2022 passed in C.S.(comm.div.) No.183/2020 by this court, dated 17.08.2022, in so far as it relates to allowing the same of Rs.39,59,550/- albeit.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Gopinath for M/s MCGAN Law Firm For Respondent : Mr.S.Lashwanth for M/s P.Wilson Associates ORDER (Order of the Court was delivered by D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.)

Challenging the judgment and decree passed by this Court in C.S (Comm.Div.) No.183/2020, dated 17.08.2022, this original side appeal has been preferred along with the instant petition to condone the delay of 284 days in preferring the Appeal.

2. In the common affidavit filed along with the petition to condone the delay, at paragraph No.6, the petitioner has stated that, he had instructed to previous counsel to file the appeal, however, he had not filed the same in time and hence, he took back the bundle from him and has filed the appeal through his present counsel. In such circumstances, there occurred the delay.

3. It is to be noted that, in the affidavit at paragraph No.6 and 8, the petitioner has not filled up the blanks, viz. he has not mentioned how many days delay in filing the appeal and it has been left blank. Further, the petitioner has not given satisfactory reasons for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal, especially, when the appeal arises from the order passed by the Commercial Division Bench.

4. It is to be mentioned that, while filing a case with a delay, each and every day's delay must be explained. But we are not satisfied with the reasons assigned in the affidavit to condone the above said delay, that too filed the affidavit by not filling up the blanks, mentioning how many days in filing the appeal. At this juncture, it is worthwhile to note that, with regard to the inordinate delay, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision in Majji Sannemma alias Sanyasirao Vs. Reddy Sridevi and others reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 1260, has observed as follows.

18. In the case of P.K.Ramachandran (supra), while refusing to condone the delay of 565 days, it is observed that in the absence of reasonable, satisfactory or even appropriate explanation for seeking condonation of delay, the same is not to be condoned lightly. It is further observed that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. It is further observed that while exercising discretion for condoning the delay, the Court has to exercise discretion judiciously

19. In the case of Paundlik Jalam Patil (supra), it is observed as under:-

" The laws of limitation are founded on public policy. Statutes of limitation are sometimes described as "statutes of peace". An unlimited and perpetual threat of limitation creates insecurity and uncertainty; some kind of limitation is essential for public order. The principle is based on the maxim " interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium ", that is, the interest of the State requires that there should be end to litigation but at the same time laws of limitation are a means to ensure private justice suppressing fraud and perjury, quickening diligence and preventing oppression. The object for fixing time-limit f