The court must first verify the existence of sufficient cause for any delay before considering the merits of a case. Inordinate delays cannot be excused through general claims of financial difficulty or vague procedural excuses, as the mandate of promptitude remains essential for ensuring judicial fairness.

ORDER :

K.MURALI SHANKAR, J.

The Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking orders to condone the delay of 2067 days in filing the second appeal, challenging the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.26 of 2015 dated 20.08.2018 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Theni, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.92 of 2014 dated 20.03.2015 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Theni.

2. The petitioners / appellants are the defendants. The respondent / plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.92 of 2014 before the District Munsif Court, Theni, claiming permanent injunction restraining the petitioners /defendants and their men from in any manner interfering with the respondent / plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

3. The petitioners / defendants filed a written statement and contested the suit.

4. The learned District Munsif, Theni, after framing necessary issues and after full trial, passed a judgment and decree dated 20.03.2015 granting permanent injunction in respect of 2½ cents in the suit property restraining the petitioners / defendants and their men from in any manner interfering with the respondent / plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the petitioners / defendants preferred an appeal in A.S.No.26 of 2015 and the learned Subordinate Judge, Theni, upon considering the materials available on record and on hearing the arguments of both the sides, passed a judgment and decree dated 20.08.2018 dismissing the appeal and thereby confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Challenging the dismissal of the first appeal, the petitioners / defendants have preferred the present second appeal along with the above petition to condone the delay of 2067 days in filing the second appeal.

5. The case of the petitioners canvassed in the delay condonation petition is that an application for getting certified copies of judgment and decree of the first appellate Court was made on 27.05.2019 and the same were made ready on 05.08.2020, that the petitioners' trial Court counsel did not inform the same immediately and thereafter, due to Covid-19 lockdown restrictions, they were not in a position to meet their advocate, that during the last week of December 2021, the trial Court counsel had handed over the said papers to the first petitioner for filing the second appeal, that the first petitioner was not in a position to mobilize the funds to prefer the second appeal immediately, that the first petitioner had also misplaced the decree copy in his house and he was able to trace out the same recently after mobilizing funds for filing expenses and other expenses, that there occurred a delay of 2067 days in filing the second appeal, that the delay is neither willful nor wanton but due to the above said reasons and that the petitioners will be put to serious loss and hardship, if the delay is not condoned.

6. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit denying the averments set out in the affidavit filed in support of the petition and has further contended that the petitioners themselves have admitted that certified copies of the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court were made ready as early as on 05.08.2020. Despite the same, the petitioners had deliberately delayed in obtaining the copies. It is further contended that, if the petitioners were genuinely vigilant and intended to prosecute the matter diligently, they ought to have contacted their counsel on their own and cannot now seek