PERIMANAMPILLAI Vs. RAJAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition in question has been filed to condone the delay of 1995 days in filing the Second Appeal against the Judgment and Decree in A.S.No.31 of 2009 on the file of the Sub Court, Pudukkottai, dated 20.01.2012.

(2.) The reason given for the delay is that the parties after the dismissal of the first appeal filed by the appellants had resolved their disputes by entering into a compromise, dated 03.05.2012. In the said compromise agreement the 'A' Schedule property therein was allotted to the appellants and 'B' Schedule was allotted to the respondents. The arrangement was arrived by the respondents and therefore, the petitioners/appellants had not taken any steps to file the Second Appeal. However, to their shock, the appellants received the summon from the Executing Court in E.P. No.1 of 2018, calling upon them to appear before the Court on 13.07.2018. On receipt of the notice, the petitioners herein had approached the respondents, but they did not respond favorably and all efforts failed. Therefore, the petitioners herein have been constrained to file this second appeal. In view of the above circumstances, there is a delay of 1995 days in preferring the Second Appeal. The above reason has been attributed for the delay.

(3.) The counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the Appellants were lulled into the relief that the dispute between the appellants and the respondents had been resolved by virtue of the Compromise Agreement. He would therefore contend that the delay was neither wilful nor wanton. He would further contend that in the light of the reasons given, this Court should adopt a liberal approach, particularly when the appellants have a good case to urge in the Second Appeal.