CMP/24831/2026 of G.Ramesh Vs V.Kousalya on 9 October 2026

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by N.Sathish Kumar J.) This petition has been filed seeking to condone the delay of 761 days in filing the above original side appeal.

2. It is the case of the petitioners filed a civil suit in C.S.No.175 of 2014 on the file of this Court seeking partition, permanent injunction and mesne profits. This Court vide judgment and decree dated 22.01.2024 partly decreed the suit and rejected the mesne profits on the ground that that no documentary evidence has been placed by the plaintiffs. Hence, the appeal has been filed

CMP No. 24831 of 2026

along with the instant petition seeking for condonation of delay of 761 days in filing the appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the petitioners’ father died on 07.08.2024, they could not file the appeal in time. Hence, seeks for condoning the delay in filing the appeal.

4. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.

5. 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. There is an increasing tendency to perceive delay even in a non-serious matter. Hence, the delay due to nonchalant attitude should be curbed at the initial stage itself.

6. The only reason assigned by the petitioners in filing the appeal is that since, the fourth plaintiff died on 07.08.2024, they were unable to process the filing of the appeal. This Court is of the view that even assuming that the fourth plaintiff had died in the year 2024, persons cannot wait for more than 2 years to file an appeal and furthermore, the reasons assigned by the petitioners are not satisfactory and there is no sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal.

CMP No. 24831 of 2026

7. Of course, the expression “sufficient cause” should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to a party. Casually filing the petition to condone the delay in filing without any proper reasons, such huge delay of 761 days cannot be condoned. A Court granting indulgence must be satisfied that there was deligence on the part of the appellant and that he was not guilty of any negligence whatsoever. Where there is no sufficient cause for condoning the delay, the said delay should not be condoned as it amounts to a case of discretion not being exercised judicially. 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.”

8. In view of the above, we do not find any merits to condone such huge delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed and un- numbered appeal stands rejected. No costs. (N.S.K.,J.) (G.K.M.,J.) 09-10-2026 dhk

CMP No. 24831 of 2026

N.SATHISH KUMAR J. AND GK.MUTHUKUMAAR J. dhk To The Manager George Town Cooperative Bank, No.62, Krishnappa Agraharam Street, Peddunaickenpet, Chennai 600001 CMP No. 24831 of 2026 in OSA SR NO. 139347 OF 2026 09-10-2026