T. VIJAYA Vs. J. RAMANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This miscellaneous petition is filed to condone the delay of 864 days in filing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 29. 01. 2016 passed in O. S. No. 6979 of 2013, on the file of the XIX

(2.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly contended that the delay in filing the appeal suit was neither willful nor wanton. However, in order to substantiate the reasons, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is residing near Thiruthani and he could not come to Chennai in person. Thus, he entrusted the case to his counsel before the Trial Court. The said counsel informed the petitioner that he will call him whenever his presence is required. It is stated that in the month of April 2018, one of the family friend of the plaintiff informed that the plaintiff in the suit was proclaiming as if he succeeded in the case. In this regard, the petitioner herein was totally in dark and therefore, he could not file an appeal suit within the time limit as contemplated under the statute. It is stated in paragraph No. 6 of the affidavit that the petitioner has gone to the counsel's office at No. 377, Additional law Chambers, in person, to ascertain the details and he gave evasive reply stating that the petitioner has to pay him additional fee and only then, he will inform him about the case details. Narrating these facts, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the counsel demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from the petitioner and unless, the said amount is paid, he will not give the suit copies to the petitioner. The petitioner was shocked and he had already paid an amount of around Rs. 40,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- on several occasions. He made a complaint before the Bar Council subsequently. Relying on the complaint sent by the petitioner to the Bar Council, the learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that it is because of the mistake committed by the advocate, the petitioner was not in a position to file the appeal suit and therefore, the delay is to be condoned.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent disputed the contention by stating that first of all, the basic particulars given regarding the learned advocate who appeared on behalf of the petitioner was erroneous. The learned counsel for the petitioner is having office at Chamber No. 379, Additional Law Chamber. However, the petitioner has stated that he approached the learned counsel at Chamber No. 377. Therefore, the grounds raised in this regard is untenable and the petition is filed with false set of facts in order to condone the huge delay of 864 days in filing the appeal suit.