SHRIRAM FINANCE Vs. S MANOHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADMITTEDLY, there had been an inordinate delay of 1288 days in the filing of the appeal by the respondent herein before the City Civil Court, Madras. In C.M.P.No.2796 of 1988, the respondent had prayed for the condonation of that delay. In the course of the affidavit filed in support of that application, the respondent admitted that after the suit was decreed on 8.4.1985, he had applied for a copy of judgment and decree and had also secured those copies even as early as 13.10.1986. The respondent further stated due to circumstances beyond his control, the appeal could not be preferred in time. In paras 4 and 5 of the affidavit, the respondent had set out that there were some litigations between him and the partner of Ratna Offset Printing Works and other proceedings for the dissolution of the partnership itself and there were talks of compromise. The affidavit also referred to the papers having been left at Madras and becoming not tradeable. Though these reasons have been given, they cannot be accepted, for, there has been no attempt by the respondent to explain the delay between 13.10.86 and the date on which the appeal was actually presented before the court below. The Court below had stated that both parties were closely moving and there were also litigations between them. Even assuming that this was so, that is hardly an explanation for the delay. The Court below also assumed that whenever there is a shifting of residence, records should be missing. The said assumption is not borne out by any material. The Court below has not recorded a finding that the entire delay has been satisfactorily explained. Though the Court below imposed some conditions on the respondent herein, on a careful consideration of entire matter, this is a case, where the court below ought not to have condoned the unexplained delay. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the court below is set aside and C.M.P. No. 2796 of 1988 in A.S.S.R.No. 144466 of 1988, City Civil Court, Madras, will stand dismissed. There will be, however, no order as to costs. Consequently, interim stay granted already is vacated and C.M.P. No. 9715 of 1989 is dismissed.