RAMALINGAM PILLAI Vs. ARUNACHALAM PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these petitions filed under S. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the petitioner has prayed for the condonation of the delay in preferring second Appeals to this Court against the common judgment in A. S. Nos. 46 and 47 of 1986, District Court, South Arcot at Cuddalore. IN the common affidavit filed in support of these petitions, the petitioner has stated that after the disposal of the appeals by the Court below on 14-8-1987, he had instructed his counsel to apply for copies of judgment and decrees for preferring Second appeals and as he was under the impression that the necessary copy application would have been filed, he did not contact his counsel till 13-11-1987. The affidavit further proceeds to state that on 13-11-1987, when the petitioner contacted his counsel, he was informed that copies had not been applied for and there upon, the petitioner is stated to have asked for an application to be made for obtaining the copies and an application was also made on 16-11-1987 and the copies were made ready on 29-1-1988 and delivered on 1-2-1988. The petitioner has further stated that from 22-1-1988 till 8-4-1988, he was suffering from jaundice and fever preventing him from moving about and only after his recovery by the first week of April, 1988, the petitioner contacted counsel, got the copies and made arrangements for the preferring of the Second appeals on 10-4-1988, when the petitioner was informed that an application to condone the delay should also be filed. Having regard to the circumstances so set out in the affidavit, the petitioner claimed that the delay is neither wilful nor wanton and deserves to be condoned.

(2.) IN the common counter-affidavit filed in opposition to these petitions, the respondents have stated that though the appeals were disposed of by the Court below on 14-8-1987, the copies of judgment and decree were applied for only on 16-11-1987 and that in the absence of any supporting affidavit either from the counsel who appeared in the Court below or his clerk to explain the delay in filing the copy application in spite of instructions contra given by the petitioner, the reason for the delay is unacceptable. The illness form which the petitioner is stated to have suffered was also denied. The petitioner, according to the respondents, had not been diligent at any stage and while he has been able to attend his other duties during the period in question, it is difficult to believe that he has not been able to make arrangements for the filing of the Second Appeals. It was also pointed out that though the copies had been obtained on 29-1-1988, there was no explanation for the non-filing of the Second Appeals before this Court till 19-4-1988. The respondents, therefore, prayed for the dismissal of these petitions.