(Prayer in CMP No.19025 of 2021: This Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed to condone the delay of 902 days in preferring the appeal against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.24 of 2010 dated 26.04.2017 passed by the learned District Judge, Nagapattinam.

A.S.SR. No. 47253 of 2021: This Appeal has been filed under Section 96 of CPC to set aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.24 of 2010 dated 26.04.2017 passed by the learned District Judge, Nagapattinam and allow the appeal.)

N. Sathish Kumar, J.

1. This application has been filed to condone the delay of 902 days in preferring the appeal against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.24 of 2010 dated 26.04.2017.

2. The suit has been mainly filed seeking a declaration that the orders passed by the District Judge, Nagapattinam, permitting the exchange of the temple land are null and void. The suit was instituted on the ground that the order of the District Judge, Nagapattinam, permitting the exchange of temple land is contrary to the orders already passed by the High Court. The suit came to be decreed on 26.04.2017. The petitioners before this Court are the defendants 4, 8, 11, 14, 16, 18, 21, 23, 24, and 25 in the suit.

3. The reason assigned in the affidavit sworn by one K.Duraisingam, who was arrayed as 4th defendant in the original suit, is that though the suit was decreed on 26.04.2017 and certified copies were also delivered on 29.06.2017, they did not prefer an appeal in time due to a settlement proposal. The respondents 1 and 2/defendants 2 and 3 in the suit, being trustees of the temple properties, had also promised to settle the issue relating to the temple. Further, they have also filed applications to condone the delay in filing the set aside exparte decree passed against them and the same were dismissed on 26.03.2019, against which, they preferred appeal in CRP.No.1895 of 2019 and CMA No.3151 of 2019. The said CRP and CMA were dismissed on 11.01.2021. Thereafter, due to Covid-19 Pandemic, the petitioners could not contact their advocate and file the appeal in time. Therefore, there is a delay of 902 days in preferring the appeal and they seek condonation of the delay.

4. A counter has been filed by the first respondent temple opposing the petition, contending that the petitioners have wantonly and wilfully prolonged the proceedings and, only with an intention to grab the temple property illegally, they have filed the appeal belatedly. The reason for delay has not been properly explained. The temple never opted for any settlement with the petitioners or the respondents 2 to 10 at any point of time. The first respondent opposed the delay and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. We have heard both sides and perused the materials available on records carefully.

6. Normally, while condoning the delay, the Court leans in favour of a party, who approaches the Court with some delay, provided the reason for such delay is bonafide and justifiable. Though a liberal approach is normally adopted in condoning the delay, such an approach cannot be applied mechanically. When the Court finds that the reasons assigned in the application lack bonafides and are unjustifiable, the very suit filed by the temple challenging the order of the District Judge permitting exchange of certain properties would also require consideration in that context. There was a contest by the respondents that some of the defendants are also practising lawyers. A copy of the judgment of the Trial Court in the present suit also shows that the said lawyer had appeared for the defendants.

7. Therefore, the fact remains that the parties were aware of the consequences of the decree and judgment. In the meantime, the defendants 2 and 3, in the suit in O.S.No.24 of 2010, who appears to have been set exparte, filed Interlocutory Applications in I.A.No.92 of 2017 to condone the delay in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree dated 26.04.2017 and I.A.No.73 of 2018 to set aside the exparte decree dated 26.04.2017. Those applications have also been dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, they preferred appeals before this Court in CRP No.1895 of 2019 and CMA No.3151 of 2019 and both came to be dismissed by a common order dated 11.01.2021. After dismissal of the CMA as well the CRP, the present application has been filed challenging the decree and the judgment. This petition to condone the delay has been filed in the month of April 2021.

8. It is relevant to note that all the petitioners/appellants have contested the suit, and they were represented by the legal practitioners. In fact, some of the petitioners are also lawyers by profession, and they have appeared before the Trial Court on behalf of other parties. Filing the present application after having allowed the earlier rounds of litigation to proceed against them and having remained silent spectators to the proceedings for all these years, and now inventing some reasons to seek condonation of the delay of 902 days, cannot, in any view, be construed as a bonafide explanation. The huge delay has not been properly explained. The very conduct of the parties in waiting for the result of other litigations and then approaching this Court with a huge delay, supported by untenable grounds, dis entitles them to the relief sought. Further, the Court, in exercising discretion, particularly in these types of petitions, has to see the conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence. The above factors are relevant to be taken into consideration as the fundamental principle is that Courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go-by in the name of liberal approach. Hence, the delay due to nonchalant attitude should be curbed at the initial stage itself. Therefore, as a matter of right, the petitioners should not be shown any liberal approach. When there is 'no cause' for the delay, it cannot be treated as 'sufficient case'. In this regard, it is relevant to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sridevi Datla vs. Union of India and others reported in (2021) 5 SCC 321 held as follows:

               “ 28. It is evident that the term sufficient cause is relative, fact dependent, and has many hues, largely deriving colour from the facts of each case, and the behaviour of the litigant who seeks condonation of delay (in approaching the court). However, what can broadly be said to be universally accepted is that in principle, the applicant must display bona fides, should not have been negligent, and the delay occasioned should not be such that condoning it would seriously prejudice the other party.”

9. In such view of the matter, we are not satisfied with the reasons assigned to condone such an inordinate delay. Hence, the petition to condone the delay is liable to be dismissed.

10. Accordingly, this Civil miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Consequently, A.S.SR.No.472533 of 2021 stands rejected at the SR stage itself. No costs.