R. NALLA GOUNDER Vs. P. RAJAPANDIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsels appearing on either sides.

(2.) THE petitioner herein who is the defendant in O.S. No. 244 of 2004 has come forward with the present application to condone the delay of 1231 days in preferring the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28.06.2010 made in O.S. No. 244 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Coimbatore.

(3.) RESISTING the same, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands. The suit was decreed on 28.06.2010 and he filed the copy application in CA. No. 6228 of 2010 and obtained a copy of the decree on 20.08.2010. However, after obtaining the copy of the decree, the petitioner neither preferred an appeal nor settled the claim as decreed by the Trial Court. Hence, the respondent filed execution petition in EPR. No. 9 of 2013, for creating charge over the property. But in the execution proceedings, the petitioner herein introduced third party for objecting the EP proceedings. Further, the petitioner entered appearance in the EP proceedings on 30.09.2013. However suppressing all those facts, the petitioner again obtained a copy of the decree and has now come forward with the present appeal along with an application to condone the delay in preferring the appeal. The learned counsel would further submit that suppression of fact itself could be a reason for dismissal of the application. To support his contention, the learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the decision reported in : (2013) 9 Supreme Court Cases 92, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited v. State of Maharashtra and Others and prayed for dismissal.