The court emphasizes the necessity for adequate justification in requests for condonation of delay, dismissing orders lacking substantive rationale.

4.V.Rajkumar ... Respondents PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated 01.11.2025 in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in ASSR.No.670 of 2025 on the file of the Sub Court, Musiri.

For Petitioners : Mr.D.Nallathambi For respondents : Mr.M.Saravanan for R1 and R2 Ms.N.Rathna (Legal aid counsel for R3 and R4)

ORDER

This civil revision petition has been filed to set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated 01.11.2025, in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in ASSR.No.670 of 2025 on the file of the Sub Court, Musiri.

2. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 293 of 2008.

On 31.07.2024, the suit was decreed. Against the decree, an appeal was preferred by the respondents herein in A.S.SR.No.670 of 2025 along with a condone delay application in I.A.No.1 of 2025 to condone the delay that occurred in filing the appeal, wherein the respondents herein had stated that there were some revenue proceedings pending between the parties and therefore they were unable to get the certified copies and therefore they were unable to appear before the Court on 31.07.2024. The same was allowed on costs. Apart from that, the papers that were handed over to the learned counsel who was analyzing the case of the respondents were not obtained by the respondents herein. Therefore, there was a delay of 263 days. The revision petitioner had filed a counter in the condone delay petition denying the proceedings that are pending before the District Revenue Officer Court and also made their denial in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the counter dated 06.10.2025. The impugned order, while considering the condonation of delay, had stated that the revision petitioner had not filed any counter and had made only oral submissions, which is contrary to the fact that the respondent had specifically pleaded that there were proceedings pending before the District Revenue Officer and the papers could not be available. Apart from that, documents were not received from the lower court. This factum of denial, which was available in the counter, was considered by the trial court, and the trial Court has only stated that the respondent had only made oral submissions.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in order to give a fair opportunity to the respondents, the trial Court allowed the petition.

4. Perusal of records shows that no reason has been specifically pleaded in the delay condonation petition, and the court below has merely observed that a reasonable opportunity ought to be given. The respondents have failed to assign any valid or sufficient cause to explain the delay of 263 days. Therefore, this court is of the view that the trial Court absolutely passed the order without application of mind. Therefore, it is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the order passed by the trial Court allowing the condonation of delay of 263 days and imposing a cost of Rs. 5,000/- is hereby set aside. This civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 5.The Court places on record its appreciation for the commendable efforts of the legal aid counsel for the respondents 3 and 4, namely, Ms.N.Rathna, for conducting the case diligently and providing valuable assistance to this Court. The High Court Legal Services Committee attached to this Bench shall pay a total sum of Rs.10,000/- towards remuneration to the legal aid counsel for conduct of the case, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without fail.