Condonation of delay under the Limitation Act requires a bona fide explanation and proof of due diligence. Inordinate, unexplained delays should not be condoned mechanically, as the substantive law of limitation serves public policy by ensuring finality and preventing the abuse of judicial processes.

ORDER :

K.MURALI SHANKAR, J.

The Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed seeking orders to condone the delay of 3807 days in representing the second appeal in S.A. (MD)SR.No.28230 of 2014 against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.64 of 2010 dated 07.12.2013 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Kuzhithurai, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.568 of 2004 dated 17.07.2009 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai.

2. The petitioner / appellant is the plaintiff. He filed a suit in O.S.No.568 of 2004 before the I Additional District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai, for recovery of Rs.39,243.80/- with interest and costs.

3. The respondents 1 and 2 / defendants 1 and 2 filed their written statement and contested the suit.

4. The learned I Additional District Munsif, Kuzhithurai, after framing necessary issues and after full trial, passed a judgment and decree dated 17.07.2009 dismissing the suit with costs. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the petitioner / plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S.No.64 of 2010 and the learned Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai, upon considering the materials available on record and on hearing the arguments of both the sides, passed a judgment and decree dated 07.12.2013 dismissing the appeal and thereby confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Challenging the said judgment and decree of the first appellate Court, the petitioner / plaintiff has preferred the present second appeal.

5. It is evident from the records that the second appeal was filed on 27.06.2014 and the appeal papers were returned by the Registry for rectification of the defects pointed out therein on 01.07.2024. The petitioner has represented the second appeal papers on 11.12.2024 along with the above petition to condone the delay of 3807 days in representing the second appeal papers.

6. The reason canvassed in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation petition is that the appeal papers were returned on 01.07.2024 by the office for rectifying certain defects and the same were misplaced in the office of the petitioner's counsel when he was shifting his office from K.K.Nagar to Uthangudi, that the papers were traced after the petitioner met his counsel on 11.12.2024 and immediately, they rectified the mistakes and represented the second appeal papers on 11.12.2024, that there occurred a delay of 3807 days in representing the papers, that the delay is neither wilful nor deliberate but due to bona fide reasons mentioned above and that the ends of justice require that the delay of 3807 days in representing the appeal papers is to be condoned.

7. The respondents 1 and 2 filed a counter affidavit disputing the petitioner's affidavit averments and further stated that there is an inordinate delay of 3807 days in representing the second appeal, that there is no merit in the second appeal as there is no question of law exists, that the petitioner is adopting delaying tactics to avoid the respondents 1 and 2 to execute the order of the Courts below, that the petitioner did not provide any sufficient reason for the said inordinate delay, that the petitioner has stated that misplacement of bundle by his advocate as the only reason for the delay and that therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

8. Before entering into further, it is necessary to refer the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian