J VENKATESH Vs. S VENKATARAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed to condone the delay of 363 days in filing the O.S.A.

(2.) Mr. N. Maninarayanan, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the O.S.A. was filed on 30/11/2000 within the limitation period. However, the certified copy of the decree was not filed along with the papers in O.S.A. under the impression that the said copy is not necessary. When the Registry returned the papers, realising the mistake, the petitioner applied for the certified copy of the decree on 12.7.2001, which was made ready on 13.7.2001, and thus the delay of 363 days occurred. The delay is neither wanton nor wilful, but under the bona fide impression that the certified copy of the decree is not necessary for filing the O.S.A.

(3.) We have carefully considered the above contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The appeal was filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 18.7.2000, passed in Application No. 859 of 1999 in C.S. No. 221 of 1951 on the file of this Court. The appeal was filed on 30.11.2000. The registry had returned the papers on 8.12.2000 in which it has been clearly pointed out that the certified/fair copy of (he decree was not filed. The papers were re-presented on 14.3.2000, without the compliance as well as without any convincing reason for dispensing with the certified copy of the decree. Again, the papers were returned by the Registry on 3.4.2001 with the same endorsement that certified copy of the decree not filed. Other defects were also pointed out. The papers were re-presented on 16.4.2001 with an endorsement that the decree was not drafted, hence not complied with. Once again, the papers were returned by the registry on 5.5.2001 in which return also, it was pointed out by the registry that the certified copy of the decree not filed. The papers were represented on 14.6.2001 with the endorsement "complied with." The next return by the Registry was on 28.6.2001, which reveal that the earlier return was not complied with by the petitioner or the counsel and hence, this return is also for the same reason of non filing of the certified copy of the decree. Only after the four returns the petitioner had applied for the certified copy of the decree. As stated in the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition, the- copy application was filed on 12.7.2001 and the certified filed in support of the condone delay petition, the copy application was filed on 12.7.2001 and the certified copy was made ready on 13.7.2001. Hence, from 8.12.2000, the Registry had been insisting for the filing of the certified copy of the decree but the petitioner without complying with the same and without giving any sufficient cause for dispensing with the copy of the decree, has prolonged the matter for nearly 10 months after filing the appeal.