Court reiterated the need for sufficient cause in condoning delay, emphasizing that inordinate delays without justifiable reasons will not be entertained.

O R D E R

This petition has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone a delay of 4,622 days in filing the Second Appeal.

2. The brief facts of this case are as follows:-

(a) The respondent herein filed a suit in O.S. No. 243 of 2006 seeking a declaration of title and a permanent injunction. By order dated 17.09.2007, the suit was dismissed.

(b) Before the trial Court, the defendant–Government did not file a written statement and was set ex parte.

(c) Aggrieved by the said order, the unsuccessful plaintiff filed A.S. No. 54 of 2008 before the Principal District Court.

(d) Before the First Appellate Court, the respondent appears to have filed I.A. No. 352 of 2010 seeking permission to adduce evidence and to submit an additional statement and documents filed along with the said petition. By order dated 09.11.2010, the petition was allowed.

(e) The written statement filed by the defendant–Government was taken on file. Despite filing the written statement.

(f) In the appeal, after allowing I.A. No. 352 of 2010, the defendants were permitted to file a written statement and to adduce both oral and documentary evidence was permitted. Accordingly, D.W.1 was examined, and Exhibits B1 to B3 were marked. D.W.1 is none other than the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar. His evidence was relied upon by the learned Principal District Judge in decreeing the suit.

(g) The suit was decreed by an order dated 15.12.2010. The present appeal has been filed, and the copy application for the proposed Second Appeal was submitted only on 02.03.2023 .

(h) The present application was filed 13 years after the pronouncement of the order by the Principal District Court, Chengalpattu, specifically on 22.12.2023, resulting in a delay of 4,622 days. Accordingly, this application seeks to condone the delay in preferring the Second Appeal .

3. Ms. R. Anitha, learned Special Government Pleader, contended that they have a good case in the Second Appeal, as the classification of the Government land is a key issue. She further stated that the value of the land has increased significantly over the past 10 years. The appellant/defendant is also willing to pay the costs for allowing this application and therefore prayed for the application to be allowed on terms of costs.

4. The contesting respondent R4 filed a counter.

5. Mr. Bharanidharan, learned counsel appearing for R4, based on the counter affidavit, contended that there is an enormous delay of 4,622 days in preferring the appeal. He further argued that, except for Paragraphs 12, 13, and 14 in the affidavit filed in support of the petition to condone the delay, all other paragraphs deal with the merits of the case, which cannot be considered at this stage in the petition for condonation of delay.

6. He drew my attention to the Writ Petition No.34635 of 2022 filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the Registration Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu, and an appeal appears to have been filed after a delay of 7 years, which is still pending at condonation of delay itself.

7. It suffices to say that, by an order dated 24.02.2017, the Writ Petitions filed by the respondent/plaintiff in W.P. Nos. 2202 and 2207 of 2017 were allowed. The order was passed after hearing both parties.

8. Due to non-compliance with the orders passed in the above Writ Petitions, Contempt Petition Nos. 256 and 257 of 2023 were filed by the respondent/plaintiff to punish the contemnor.

9. At this juncture, it appears that the Government Registration Department filed W.A. SR Nos. 658 and 659 of 2023 with an enormous delay of 2,223 days in preferring the Writ Appeal. The appeal was filed only after the court reprimanded the department for non-impleme