ORDER Inveighing the order dated 15.9.2011 passed by the Principal Subordinate Court, Erode, in I.A.No.716 of 2010 in A.S.No.........of 2010, this revision petition petition has been filed. 2. The facts as stood uncurtained in this matter could be encapsulated thus: (i) The revision petitioners herein filed the appeal memorandum, as against the judgement and decree passed by the lower Court in O.S.No.2951 of 1981 along with I.A., to get the delay of 61 days condoned in preferring the appeal. (ii) However, after hearing both sides, the appellate Court dismissed the said interlocutory application for condoning the delay. 3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the revision petitioners preferred this revision on the main ground that the appellate Court failed to give opportunity to the petitioners to get the appeal processed, as per law. The ratiocination adhered to by the appellate Court as though there were as many as eight appellants and that without delay, the appeal could have been filed even if one had been diligent enough in preferring the appeal, is not correct. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the delay was not huge and not all the persons were responsible for prosecuting the appeal, but only Shankararaj took up the responsibility of looking after the litigation on behalf of the other appellants and in view of the said Sankararaj's illness, he could not contact his advocate and cause the appeal presented in time, which fact was not at all considered by the appellate Court. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the reasons found set out in the affidavit accompanying the I.A.No.716 of 2010 was far from satisfactory and that was why the Court taking into account the long pendency of the litigation, in general, observed that the other appellants could have initiated action to prefer the appeal. 6. The point for consideration is as to whether the delay of 61 days has to be condoned? 7. I would like to fumigate my mind with the trite proposition of law that a huge delay should not be condoned as a matter of course. But so far this case is concerned the delay was only 61 days, which in my opinion is not enormous. However, the appellate Court felt as though apart from Shankarraj, other appellants could have taken steps. But so far this case is concerned the delay was only 61 days, which in my opinion is not enormous. However, the appellate Court felt as though apart from Shankarraj, other appellants could have taken steps. Once Shankarraj has come forward with the categorical averment that he was responsible for looking after the litigation, the Court could have accepted such explanation, because it is well known that if more number of litigants are there, one would undertake the task of looking after the litigation in contacting the advocate and furnishing the relevant papers for filing in Court. Hence, in this view of the matter, the delay could have been condoned by the Court by awarding cost, which the appellate Court failed to do so, warranting interference in revision. 8. This is also a fact to be noted that the litigation is between the revision petitioners and the temple relating to title. Hence, this revision is allowed condoning the delay of 61 days, subject to payment of Rs.1000/-(Rupees thousand) payable by the revision petitioners in favour of the first respondent, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.