The court established that inordinate delays in litigation must be justified with substantial evidence, and failure to do so results in dismissal of petitions.

COMMON ORDER :

K. MURALI SHANKAR, J.

The Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking Order IV Rule 9(4) of Madras High Court Appellate Side Rules seeking orders to condone the delay of 2032 days in representing the second appeal in S.A. (MD)SR.No.4604 of 2020 against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.29 of 2018 dated 12.07.2019 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Ramanathapuram, partly allowing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.185 of 2013 dated 12.03.2018 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ramanathapuram.

2. The petitioners filed a suit in O.S.No.185 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ramanathapuram claiming the reliefs of declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. The learned District Munsif, after full trial, passed a judgment and decree dated 12.03.2018 dismissing the suit. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the petitioners preferred an appeal in A.S.No.29 of 2018 and the learned Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram, upon considering the materials available on record and on hearing the arguments of both the sides, passed a judgment and decree dated 12.07.2019 partly allowing the appeal and granted the relief of declaration but confirmed the judgment of the trial Court with regard to permanent and mandatory injunction. Challenging the said judgment and decree, the petitioners have preferred the present second appeal.

3. It is not in dispute that the petitioners filed the present second appeal on 24.01.2020 and the same was returned by the Registry on 29.01.2020 directing compliance of the defects pointed out therein. It is evident from the records that the petitioners have represented the second appeal along with the above petition on 19.09.2025 to condone the delay of 2032 days in representing the second appeal.

4. The reason canvassed in the delay condonation petition is that the certified copies of the judgment and decree were made ready on 24.10.2019 and that the petitioners had applied for certified copies of all the documents relating to the original suit as well as the appeal suit. It is further stated that the first petitioner was affected with viral fever and, due to the same, the Second Appeal was filed before this Court only on 24.01.2020, resulting in a delay of five days in filing the appeal. It is their further case that after the filing of the Second Appeal, the same was returned for want of certain necessary documents and that while the first petitioner was attempting to secure the said documents, the entire nation was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the petitioners, the Government imposed several lockdowns one after another, restricting the movement of the public from one District to another, and therefore they could not meet their advocate and the advocate’s office also remained closed for several months. It is further stated that after the lockdown restrictions were relaxed, the first petitioner met his advocate for re- presenting the Second Appeal, but the case bundle along with the returned bundle had been misplaced and could not be traced, as the advocate had shifted his office to another place. According to the petitioners, the records were traced out only recently and consequently there occurred a delay of 2032 days in representing the papers. It is therefore contended that the delay is neither wilful nor wanton and that the petitioners would be put to great loss and hardship if the delay is not condoned.

5. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit disputing the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition and have c