S. Chandra Babu v. S. Dillibabu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.12.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM C.M.P.No.13330 of 2016 in A.S.SR.No.52786 of 2016 S.Chandra Babu
...Petitioner/Appellant
Vs..
S.Dillibabu
...Respondent/Respondent
Miscellaneous Petition filed under Order 41 Rule 3-A of CPC r/w Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 2084 days in filing the Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2010 passed in O.S.No.500 of 2004 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Chengalpet. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sadasharam For Respondent : Not ready in notice
ORDER
This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed to condone the delay of 2084 days in filing the First Appeal against the judgment and the decree dated 30.07.2010 passed in O.S.No.500 of 2004.
2.The petitioner states that the suit was filed for partition and permanent injunction. The preliminary decree was passed on 30.07.2010 and there was a delay in filing an application for final decree. However, an application for final decree was filed and the said application was contested by the petitioner. The appointment of Advocate Commissioner was sought for and accordingly appointed by the Court through its order dated 17.11.2015, wherein the sale deed dated 10.11.1982 is found invalid and illegal. The petitioner narrates entire facts and circumstances as well as the merits regarding the judggment and decree. However, no grounds have been furnished for condoning the huge delay of 2084 days. Not even a single reason has been stated and in paragraph 11 alone, it is stated that because of the pendency of the Second Appeal in S.A.No.1053 of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
2005, the petitioner did not take any steps to file appeal against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.500 of 2004. Except the said reasons, there is no averment in the affidavit with reference to the delay in filing the First Appeal against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.500 of 2004. 3.In the absence of any such acceptable reasons, this Court could not condone such a huge delay of 2084 days in filing the said appeal. Any such huge delay is to be condoned, if the parties are able to establish that they could not be able to approach the Court on account of certain genuine reasons. In the absence of any such genuine reasons, which is to be established before the Court of Law, huge delay of 2084 days cannot be condoned at all. Uncondonable delay cannot be condoned on certain flimsy grounds. Huge delay in normal circumstances are condonable, if the delay is meager, then it can be construed as condonable delay.
4.An application for final decree was filed and the Advocate Commissioner was appointed. Under these circumstances, huge delay of 2084 days cannot be condoned in the absence of any acceptable reasons, the petitioner filed the First Appeal merely by stating that Second Appeal is of the year 2005 and is pending and therefore, he did not take steps to file an Appeal. Such reason is absurd and cannot be accepted for the purpose of condoning the enormous delay of 2084 days.
5.These being the facts and circumstances, the petitioner has not given any acceptable reason for the purpose of condoning the delay and accordingly the petition is devoid of merits and stands dismissed. No costs. Accordingly, the A.S is rejected at the SR stage itself.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CJ Conf) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar Mrm To The Principal District Judge, Chengalpet.
C.M.P.No.13330 of 2016 in A.S.SR.No.52786 of 2016 SSD(CO) GN(28/01/2020) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/