KANDASAMY Vs. MUTHAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff/decree -holder in O.S. No. 3 of 2008 on the file of District Munsif Court, Dharapuram, is before this Court, challenging the allowing of the application filed by the respondents under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 221 days in filing the appeal as against the judgment and decree dated 06.08.2012 granted in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff in the said suit and rejection of the counter claim made by them by the Trial Court.

(2.) THE petitioner filed the suit for permanent injunction and in the said suit, the respondents filed a counter claim. After contest, the suit was decreed on 06.08.2012. After the judgment, according to the respondents, there was a panchayat and in the said panchayat, the petitioner agreed not to interfere with the rights of the respondents and therefore, the appeal could not be filed in time. However, when the petitioner tried to interfere with the respondents' possession, the respondents were compelled to file an appeal along with a petition to condone the delay of 221 days in filing the appeal. The Appellate Court, after hearing both the parties, came to the conclusion that, an opportunity should be given to the respondents to putforth their case and get a judgment on merits. The Appellate Court also accepted the reasons given by the respondents for condoning the delay and allowed the condone delay petition. Hence, the present revision.

(3.) EVENTHOUGH the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in Esha Bhattacharjee V. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur, Nafar Academy reported in : 2013 5 CTC 547, to contend that each day's delay has to be explained, only one of the guidelines given in the said judgment has been quoted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The principles to be adopted in case of condonation of delay have been elaborately given in paragraph Nos. 15 and 16 of the said judgment and they are extracted as hereunder: