JUDGMENT : (Prayer in M.P. No. 1 of 2015:- Miscellaneous Petition filed under Order 41 Rule 3A r/w Order 42 Rule 1 of C.P.C. to condone the delay of 611 days in the filing the Second Appeal.) 1. The petition has been laid by the petitioners to condone the delay of 611 days in preferring the second appeal. 2. It is found that the respondent/plaintiff had levied the suit in O.S.No.150/2011, seeking the relief of cancellation of the provisional allotment made in her favour dated 23.12.2005 on the part of the petitioner/appellant and for consequential reliefs and the said suit, after contest, is found to have been dismissed on 18.06.2012. Impugning the same, the plaintiff has preferred the first appeal in A.S.No.414/2012. The first appellate Court was pleased to set-aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and by way of allowing the appeal preferred by the respondent/plaintiff, granted the reliefs as prayed for in her suit by judgment and decree dated 05.07.2013. Impugning the same, the petitioners have come forward with the second appeal. As the delay of 611 days had occurred in preferring the appeal, to condone the delay, the present petition has been laid. 3. Both the petitioners and the respondent have in their respective pleadings put forth various averments as regards their case as projected by them respectively in the main suit. The issue that has to be determined in this petition is whether the delay adduced by the petitioners should be condoned or not. The two reasons given by the petitioners for the condonation of the delay are that due to the administrative reasons and the change of standing counsel for the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, the delay had occurred in preferring the second appeal. The two reasons given by the petitioners for the condonation of the delay are that due to the administrative reasons and the change of standing counsel for the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, the delay had occurred in preferring the second appeal. The abovesaid reasons projected by the petitioners for the delay are stoutly challenged by the respondent/plaintiff and contended that despite having knowledge about the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court and also the writ petition preferred by her in W.P.No.30138/2014 as well as the Contempt petition No.802/2016, it is put forth that the petitioners had not evinced interest to impugn the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court and delaying the issuance of the order of allotment in her favour despite the orders of the High Court in the abovesaid writ petition and therefore, there is absolutely no merits in the petition and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. It is not the case of the petitioners that they are not aware of the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court, dated 05.07.2013. If according to the petitioners/appellants, the first appellate Court had granted the reliefs in favour of the respondent/plaintiff, which could not be sustained in the eyes of law, the petitioners, being aware of the same on 05.07.2013 itself, they should have endeavoured to proceed further in the matter by challenging the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court in the manner known to law. Though it is put forth by the petitioners/appellants that they have also applied for the copy of the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court and the same had been delivered to them on 21.08.2013, still, it is found that they had not chosen to prefer the second appeal in time and have come forward with the second appeal only in the year 2015 and with reference to the abovesaid delay, the reasons given by the petitioners are due to administrative delay and the change of their standing counsel. As abovenoted, the abovesaid reasons projected by the petitioners are being stoutly repudiated by the respondent/plaintiff. As abovenoted, the abovesaid reasons projected by the petitioners are being stoutly repudiated by the respondent/plaintiff. In such view of the matter, it is for the petitioners to come forward as to on account of what administrative reasons they had been prevented to prefer the second appeal in time and who was responsible for the same and what further steps had been taken to rectify the same and furthermore, the petitioners should have come forward as to who was their standing counsel at the relevant point of time, when he came to demit the office and when the new standing counsel had been appointed and what further steps the new standing counsel had taken with reference to the subject matter concerned, however nothing has been averred in the petition and also not substantiated the same by placing acceptable and reliable materials, other than very very vaguely stating that the delay had occurred due to administrative reasons and change of standing counsel. There is no further cause adduced by the petitioners for the delay. 5. The above attitude of the petitioners would go to show that they are under the impression that this Court would entertain the cause adduced whatever it may be, on the mere averments and without calling for any proof and the abovesaid lethargic and indifferent attitude of the petitioners are found to be the real cause for the delay in preferring the second appeal. However, the abovesaid cause projected by the petitioners is found to be unacceptable. 6. As could be seen from the averments contained in the counter affidavit filed by the counsel for the respondent, pursuant to the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court, it is seen that she had deposited the sum required to be paid by him to the petitioners/appellants on 05.09.2013 itself and despite the same, as the petitioners have not moved their little finger in taking further steps, left with no other alternative, the respondent/plaintiff had been necessitated to file the writ petition in W.P.No.30138/2014 for a direction to the petitioners to issue the sale deed in her favour in respect of the subject matter as per the judgment and decree dated 05.07.2013, in A.S.414/2012. 7. It is found that the abovesaid writ petition has been contested by the petitioners/appellants. 7. It is found that the abovesaid writ petition has been contested by the petitioners/appellants. This Court, in the abovesaid writ petition, on 17.02.2015 had directed the petitioners/appellants to consider the writ petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The abovesaid writ petition is found to have been pending for more than one year to the knowledge of the petitioners/appellants. As abovenoted, the abovesaid writ petition has been laid consequent to the failure of the petitioners/appellants in executing the sale deed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff qua the subject matter following the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court. When the abovesaid writ petition is found to have been contested by the petitioners/appellants right from 2014 onwards, atleast thereafter, the petitioners/appellants should have been vigilant and endeavoured sincerely to take appropriate steps in challenging the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court. Even thereafter, for more than one year, they had not taken any further steps, despite having knowledge about the entitlement of the respondent/plaintiff in the obtainment of the sale deed from them as per the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court. Furthermore, it is seen that as the petitioners/appellants had not complied with the directions of this Court in the writ petition, she has been necessitated to lay the contempt petition against them. Not stopping there, it is further seen that the respondent/plaintiff had also been forced to prefer the execution proceedings against the petitioners for issuing the allotment order. 8. The abovesaid factors viewed conjointly would go to expose that despite having knowledge about the said judgment and decree of the first appellate Court and that they are bound to issue the sale deed to the respondent/plaintiff qua the subject matter, the petitioners/appellants are found to be dilly-dallying the matter by wasting time without taking any steps either way and very coolly have come forward in preferring the second appeal belatedly with the baseless and unfounded reasons i.e., administrative delay and change of counsel. With reference to the abovesaid cause projected by them, absolutely the same is found to be dearth of particulars and also not supported by any proof whatsoever even prima facie. With reference to the abovesaid cause projected by them, absolutely the same is found to be dearth of particulars and also not supported by any proof whatsoever even prima facie. In such view of the matter, merely because the petitioners/appellants are representing the Tamil Nadu Housing Board as such, they cannot expect that their case should be leniently viewed at all times and when as above discussed, the petitioners/appellants are found to be not earnest and sincere in proceeding further in challenging the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court and had been wasting time without any reason whatsoever and thereby putting the respondent/plaintiff to immense loss and hardship and the respondent is forced to run from pillar to post for securing the relief to which she is entitled to, in all, it is found that the abovesaid conduct of the petitioners/appellants do not merit any indulgence from this Court. In such view of the matter, the petitioners/appellants having failed to place acceptable cause for the delay and also not buttressed the same by further furnishing the necessary particulars and proof, in such view of the matter, I am unable to accede to the cause projected by the petitioners/appellants for the delay. 9. In this connection, the petitioners' counsel placed reliance upon the decisions of the Supreme Court dated 09.06.2010 Civil Appeal Nos.2395 of 2008 Improvement Trust, Ludhiana Vs. Ujagar Singh & Ors and dated 08.03.2018 Civil Appeal Nos. 2599-2600 of 2018 Ummer Vs. Pottengal Subida & Ors. Per contra, the respondent's counsel placed reliance upon the decision reported in 1996 AIR (SC) 1623 (State of Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani and others). The principles of law outlined in the abovesaid decisions are taken into consideration and followed as applicable to the case at hand. 10. In conclusion, M.P. No.1 of 2015 is found to be devoid of merits and accordingly, the same is dismissed with costs. Resultantly, the S.A. SR. No. 58777 of 2015 is rejected.