Madras High Court
S.Sampangi vs E.Pandurangan on 28 February, 2022
S.A. Sr. No.25244 of 2021
and C.M.P. No.295 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.02.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
S.A. Sr. No.25244 of 2021
and C.M.P. No.295 of 2022
S.A. Sr. No.25244 of 2021
S.Sampangi .. Appellant
Vs.
E.Pandurangan .. Respondent
Appeal Suit sought to be filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. against the
judgment and decree in A.S. No.10 of 2008 by the Subordinate Court,
Gingee dated 25.03.2011 modifying the judgment and decree passed in
O.S. No.158 of 2000 by the Additional District Munsif Court, Gingee dated
11.08.2006.
For Appellant : Ms. S.Aparna
For Respondent : Mr. B.Jawahar
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A. Sr. No.25244 of 2021
and C.M.P. No.295 of 2022
C.M.P. No.295 of 2022
in S.A. Sr. No.25244 of 2021
S.Sampangi .. Petitioner
Vs.
E.Pandurangan .. Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Order 41 Rule 3A r/w.
Order 42 Rule 1 C.P.C., to condone the delay of 3187 days in filing the
second appeal.
For Petitioner : Ms. S.Aparna
For Respondent : Mr. B.Jawahar
JUDGMENT
C.M.P. No.295 of 2022
in S.A. Sr. No.25244 of 2021
This petition is filed to condone the delay of 3187 days in filing the
above second appeal.
2. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit in O.S. No.158 of 2000.
The suit is for declaration of title and permanent injunction. Though the
suit was decreed, the appeal filed by the plaintiff in the suit was allowed
and the suit was decreed as prayed for. As against the judgment of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A. Sr. No.25244 of 2021
and C.M.P. No.295 of 2022
lower appellate Court in A.S. No.10 of 2008 reversing the judgment and
decree of the trial Court, the above second appeal is preferred.
3. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the petitioner stated
that he has severe financial constraints for the past more than five years as
there was no rain in his area. It is further stated that the petitioner is a
diabetic patient who was suffering from hypertension. Except the reasons
stated in the affidavit, the petitioner has not come up with proper
explanation for the delay of nearly nine years. It is admitted that the
certified copy of the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court in
A.S. No.10 of 2008 were made ready on 17.11.2016. Absolutely there is no
explanation for the delay from the year 2016. Merely because the petitioner
is a diabetic patient suffering from hypertension, indulgence cannot be
shown to the petitioner to condone the huge delay of more than nine years.
4. Though it is stated by the petitioner that the delay is neither wilful
nor wanton, the reasons stated in the affidavit support of the petition
cannot be accepted. The delay in the present case, without valid
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A. Sr. No.25244 of 2021
and C.M.P. No.295 of 2022
explanation, makes this Court to doubt the bona fides of the petitioner in
prosecuting the appeal. The compromise talks alleged in paragraph '4' of
the affidavit is not proved and the memo of compromise dated 10.11.2009
is not produced.
5. Normally this Court may consider the delay with a pragmatic
approach showing leniency so as to give an opportunity to the parties to get
decision on merits. However, the delay in the present case is more than
nine years and there is no plausible reason for the delay. The petitioner has
not even taken care to give adequate reasons for the delay. Without any
valid reason for the delay, the petitioner cannot get the delay condoned as
this Court has no absolute discretion in matters like this. Since the delay is
not properly explained, this Court is also of the view that serious prejudice
will be caused to the other side if this petition is allowed at this length of
time. This Court is not convinced with the reasons. Showing mercy on the
petitioner in this case will be against settled legal principles. The petitioner
after abandoning his claim has come to Court without showing any bona
fide reasons for the inordinate delay of nine years.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A. Sr. No.25244 of 2021
and C.M.P. No.295 of 2022
6. In view of the above, this Court has no other option but to dismiss
the petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. The above Second
Appeal stands rejected at Sr. stage itself.
28.02.2022
bkn
To:
1.The Subordinate Judge, Gingee.
2.The Additional District Munsif, Gingee.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A. Sr. No.25244 of 2021
and C.M.P. No.295 of 2022
S.S.SUNDAR, J.,
bkn
S.A. Sr. No.25244 of 2021
and C.M.P. No.295 of 2022
28.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
