K.N. RANGASWAMY Vs. SHRI ARUNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on I.A.No.1/2021 for condonation of delay of 872 days in filing the second appeal. In support of the application, an affidavit is filed and in paragraph No.5 of the affidavit while explaining the delay it is sworn to that there is a delay in filing the second appeal. It is further sworn to that on the dismissal of the plaintiffs' suit, plaintiff No.3, who is a relative of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2, who is an advocate, confided that he would coordinate with plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and their family members and also his family members of an amicable settlement notwithstanding the ultimate result in the above appeal and they believed that his efforts would settle the statement, but the same could not be succeeded. It is sworn to that plaintiff No.3 is also a practicing advocate and also a close relative of both the parties, made them to believe that he would settle the matter. Believing the words of the said common friend and relative and to have a quietus to the litigation, they could not file the appeal in time. Meanwhile, the present pandemic also added to the delay.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellants in support of his arguments relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION, ANANTNAG AND OTHERS v. KATIJI AND OTHERS reported in and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.3 wherein discussed with regard to the every day's delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner.

(3.) The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of N. BALAKRISHNAN v. M. KRISHNAMURTHY reported in and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.13 wherein the Apex Court discussed with regard to delay is concerned that it must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of malafides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy the Court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. But when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time then the Court should lean against acceptance of the explanation. While condoning the delay the Court should not forget the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a loser and he too would have incurred quite a large litigation expenses. It would be a salutary guideline that when Courts condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant the Court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss.