Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2988 (MAD)

Muthammal v. Thangam

2018-09-17

R.THARANI

body2018
JUDGMENT : R. Tharani, J. This petition has been filed to condone the delay of 5075 days in filing the Second Appeal. 2. On the side of the respondent, it was represented that final decree was already passed and an appeal against the final decree was also filed by the petitioners in A.S.No.91 of 2017, before the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil. Hence, this Court called for report from the Lower Court. 3. The report from the Lower Court is received. From the report, it is clear that the petitioner filed an appeal against the preliminary decree passed by II Additional Munsif, Nagercoil, dated 31.08.1999 in A.S.No.96 of 1999 and the same was dismissed and a final decree petition in I.A.No.400 of 2013 was filed and the final decree was passed on 29.04.2017. Against the final decree, an appeal in A.S.No.91 of 2017 is filed and the same is pending before the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil. 4. The first reason for the delay as stated by the petitioner is that the first petitioner suffered from rheumatism and was bedridden and was taking Ayurvedic treatment at Kerala till 2015. No document is filed to show that the petitioner was bedridden from 2003 to 2015. 5. The second reason stated by the petitioner is that the bundle was misplaced. From which date the bundle was found missing and on what date the bundle was traced out is not stated in the petition. 6. The third reason stated by the petitioner is that the certified copies of Judgment and Decree of the First Appellate Court was not available in the bundle and his Advocate instructed him to file copy application again. When the petitioner found out that certified copies are missing is not stated in the petition. 7. The fourth reason stated by the petitioner is that again the first petitioner suffered from rheumatism and she took treatment in Kerala. The specific period of treatment is not stated and no document is filed to prove the ill health of the first petitioner and the treatment given to her. 8. The fifth point stated by the petitioner is that after falling ill and after the treatment for the second time, she filed copy application and received the certified copies. When copy application was filed, when she got the certified copies are not stated in the petition. 9. 8. The fifth point stated by the petitioner is that after falling ill and after the treatment for the second time, she filed copy application and received the certified copies. When copy application was filed, when she got the certified copies are not stated in the petition. 9. On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that the other petitioners are working in far away places from Kanyakumari. But, the address of petitioner Nos.3 to 8 reveals that they reside at Kanyakumari. Why the second petitioner could not file Second Appeal within a period of 14 years is not stated. 10. Within the above said period the petitioners were contesting the final decree petition before the Lower Court. Each day of delay is to be explained by the petitioners. The Petitioners miserably failed to explain the inordinate delay of 14 years. 11. The Original Suit was filed in the year 1990. This case is pending for the past 28 years. The reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of this petition, are not satisfactory. Accordingly, the delay excuse petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the S.A.(MD).No. SR39536 of 2017 is rejected at the SR stage itself.