CHENNAPPA Vs. ADAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent on I.A.No.1/2021 which is filed to condone the delay of 1302 days in filing the appeal. In support of this application, an affidavit is sworn to that they are sufficiently aged and they were not in a position to attend the Court in all dates of hearing and the advocate who is on record also not informed about the disposal of the appeal and hence, they were not aware of the same and only when respondent Nos.3 and 8 came to the village stating that they are going to take the possession of the property in the month of March 2020, due to COVID-19 pandemic, the Courts were closed and thereafter, filed an appeal immediately. Hence, the delay has to be condoned. The counsel appearing for the appellants would vehemently contend that he has a good case and delay has to be condoned and the Court has to take lenient view while condoning the delay.

(2.) Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent filed the objection statement contending that the appellants are representing through the counsel and appeal was disposed of on 31/5/2016 and this appeal is filed after four years and excluding the limitation period of COVID-19 also, still there are 1302 days of delay in filing the appeal and both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court allowed the suit and confirmed the order of the Trial Court and hence, in both the Courts, the appellants were unsuccessful and there are no reasons to condone the delay.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also on perusal of the material on record it is not in dispute that the appeal was disposed of on 31/5/2016 and the reasons assigned in the application that they are sufficiently aged and they were not aware of the disposal of the case and only when the respondent Nos.3 and 8 came to the village, the appellants comes to know about the same. The counsel for the appellants given the reason for the delay is that the appellants are sufficiently aged and nothing is stated with regard to what prevented them from in contacting their advocate from 2016 to 2020 i.e., for a period of four years and no explanation with regard to the delay from 2016 to 2020. No doubt, the appellants in the affidavit stated that due to COVID-19, they could not file the appeal within the time but the COVID-19 starts only after March 2020 and in between 2016 to 2020, the appeal has not been filed and there is no explanation to that effect and only reason assigned that they were sufficiently aged. When such reasoning is given in the affidavit, each day delay has to be explained to condone the delay and the same has not been done. The reasons assigned in the application to condone delay of 1302 days in filing the appeal is not satisfactory. The counsel for the respondent also brought to notice of this Court that the appeal was disposed of on 31/5/2016 and from 2016 to 2020, there is no explanation for the delay in filing the appeal and the statement of objection also that there is also a concurrent finding by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. Though the counsel for the appellants contend that he has got merit in the case, having considered the delay of 1302 days in filing the appeal and the suit is also for the relief of permanent injunction and hence, I do not find any ground to condone the delay of 1302 days when the reasons assigned in the application is not satisfactory in explaining the each day delay to condone the same. Hence, I.A.No.1/2021 is dismissed and consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.