JUDGMENT : (Prayer: The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1521 days in filing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the Fair and Final Order passed in I.A.No.59 of 2013 in O.S.No.15 of 2011 on the file of Additional District Court, Bhavani dated 19.02.2015.) 1. The petitioner herein has come up with the present Civil Miscellaneous Petition to condone the delay of 1521 days in filing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the Fair and Final Order passed in I.A.No.59 of 2013 in O.S.No.15 of 2011 on the file of Additional District Court, Bhavani dated 19.02.2015. 2. The petitioner herein has filed a suit in O.S.No.15 of 2011 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Bhavani against the respondent herein seeking a decree by directing the respondent to execute the sale and get it registered within the time stipulated by getting the balance of sale consideration of Rs.5,00,000/- from the petitioner and permanent injunction by restraining the respondent, her men and agent from interfering with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoying the suit property. 3. Earlier, the father of the petitioner had sought leave before this Court to appear on behalf of petitioner / plaintiff in the said suit and the leave was granted by this Court on 09.09.2019 based on the registered Power of attorney. The respondent had filed a written statement in the said suit. As the petitioner / plaintiff was residing in Saudi Arabia and working there at the time of conducting the suit before the said court, he had given a said power of attorney, which was notarized on 28.02.2011. When the suit was posted on 17.07.2013 for trial, the father of the petitioner [power of attorney] herein could not appear before the said court due to his health issues and it was not on any other reason. But the trial court has dismissed the same for non-prosecution and within a period of limitation, he has filed I.A.No.59 of 2013 in O.S.No.15 of 2011 to restore the suit on 13.08.2013. The respondent filed a counter that no special power of attorney was filed along with the petition, immediately, the petitioner herein had filed a special power of attorney along with a memo and the respondent has raised an objection. The respondent filed a counter that no special power of attorney was filed along with the petition, immediately, the petitioner herein had filed a special power of attorney along with a memo and the respondent has raised an objection. Since the power of attorney was only a notarized one and not registered and objected for the same. The trial court had dismissed the same as not maintainable on 19.02.2015 on the ground that the Special Power of Attorney was not registered on the day of execution. 4. In the petition, it is further stated that the petitioner has filed another I.A.No.26 of 2015 under Section 114 of CPC to review the said order passed in I.A.No.59 of 2013 in O.S.No.15 of 2011, on the ground that on the day of execution, the document does not required to be registered and other various grounds. Without appreciating the pleadings, the trial court had dismissed the review application. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had filed Civil Revision Petition No.1835 of 2019 before this Court challenging the order passed in the review petition and the same is pending. 5. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition it is further averred that on 13.08.2018, the petitioner had executed registered general power of attorney in favour of his father and as the special power of attorney supersedes registered general power of attorney, the petitioner’s father filed CMP before this Court seeking leave and the same was allowed on the ground that he is armed with registered power of attorney and the same can be taken up and hence permission was granted to the petitioner’s father. The reasons stated by the petitioner is that on 27.04.2019, the said application was allowed for seeking leave to challenge the order passed by the trial court made in I.A.no.59 of 2013 in O.S.No.15 of 2011 on the file of Additional District Court, Bhavani dated 19.02.2015. 6. Further, it is averred in the petition that now, the petitioner was advised to file the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before this Court to challenge the order passed in I.A.No.59 of 2013 in O.S.No.15 of 2011 dated 19.02.2015, hence, there is a delay of 1531 days in filing the said CMA before this Court. 6. Further, it is averred in the petition that now, the petitioner was advised to file the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before this Court to challenge the order passed in I.A.No.59 of 2013 in O.S.No.15 of 2011 dated 19.02.2015, hence, there is a delay of 1531 days in filing the said CMA before this Court. The delay is neither willful nor wanton, but for the reasons stated above and seeks to condone the delay in filing the CMA against the fair and final order passed in I.A.no.59 of 2013 in O.S.No.15 of 2011 dated 19.02.2015. 7. Apart from the above, it is stated in the petition that now, taking advantage of the said dismissal of the said I.A., the respondent has also filed O.S.No.13 of 2017 before the Additional District Court, Bhavani and the same is posted in the special list and the claim of the respondent/defendant is recovery of possession with reference to the same suit property, hence he prays for stay all further proceedings in O.S.No.13 of 2017 on the file of learned Additional District Court, Bhavani. 8. Per contra, a counter affidavit was filed by the respondent stating that the averments stated in the affidavit to condone delay of 1531 days in CMA SR 94283 of 2019 filed against I.A.No.59 of 2013 in O.S.No.15 of 2011 is bereft of any reasons much less sufficient reasons to condone the above said inordinate delay. ‘The petitioner has stated that now I am advised to challenge the original order passed in I.A.No.59 of 2013’, except the said averment, no other reasons or explanation given to condone the delay of 1531 days. 9. In the counter, it is also submitted that I.A.No.59 of 2013 was dismissed on 19.02.2015 and the petitioner filed I.A.No.26 of 2015 on 17.03.2015 to review the order dated 19.02.2015. Subsequently, I.A.No.26 of 2015 was dismissed on 16.02.2017 and the petitioner had filed CRP No.1835 of 2019 on 01.04.2019. In fact, the petitioner has not given any valid reason or explanation for the delay of two years from 19.02.2015 to 16.02.2017 and no explanation for the delay from 16.02.2017 to 13.08.2019 for another 2 ½ years and in total, 4 ½ years delay has occurred in filing this CMA, which fact reveals that there is no bonafide in the petitioner’s claim. Even CRP No.1835 of 2019 has been filed against the I.A.No.26 of 2015 to review order made in I.A.No.59 of 2013 is not maintainable. In fact, the petitioner ought to have filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the order dismissing the review petition. 10. The learned counsel for the respondent also relied on the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2015) 1 Supreme Court Cases 680 [H.Dohil Constructions Company Pvt., Ltd., V. Nahar Exports Limited and another] and submitted that when no reasons stated what prevented the petitioner from filing an appeal before this court and the court has to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of parties and the same cannot be gone under the guise of liberal approach, even if it pertains, the court has to dismiss the same. The impugned order of High Court in having condoned the delay in filing as well as refiling of 9 days and 1727 days respectively, in casual manner without giving any valid reason, much less acceptable reasons, cannot therefore by sustained and the same were dismissed and hence he prays for dismissal of the present case. 11. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the documents placed on record. 12. Admittedly, in Civil Appeal No.4669 of 2019 (Bhivchandra Shankar More V. Balu Gangaram more and others) the Hon’ble Supreme Court had set aside the judgment dated 20.08.2014 passed by the High Court, Bombay in W.P.No.3290 of 2014, wherein the High Court had refused to condone the delay in filing the first appeal challenging the exparte decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.35 of 2007 dated 04.07.2008. While setting aside the said Judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed that ‘sufficient cause’ should be given liberal construction so as to advance sustainable justice when there is no inaction, no negligence nor want of bonafide could be imputable to the appellant’. Here in the case on hand, neither sufficient nor substantial cause has been pleaded to condone the delay of 1531 days in filing the present CMA. 13. From the perusal of the records it is seen that the petitioner simply blamed the procedure in Civil Procedure Code and petition to condone the delay of 4 ½ years would definitely cause serious prejudice to the respondent and the petitioner had approached this Court after a long period without any valid cogent explanation. 13. From the perusal of the records it is seen that the petitioner simply blamed the procedure in Civil Procedure Code and petition to condone the delay of 4 ½ years would definitely cause serious prejudice to the respondent and the petitioner had approached this Court after a long period without any valid cogent explanation. The petitioner is not vigilant and slept over for years without exhausting his rights, which lacks bonafide on the part of the petitioner. There was no proper reasons alleged in the affidavit as to why the appeal was not filed in time. The delay of 1531 days is bereft of any valid reasons, therefore, the appellants should not be shown any indulgence by this Court. 14. Moreover, the petitioner cannot take advantage that unknowingly, he has filed CRP and now, as per advise, he has filed the present CMA and that delay has occurred. The learned counsel for the respondent has also placed reliance on the maxim ‘vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt’, which means Law assists, those who are vigilant and not to the person, who sleep over their rights. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner has not taken serious steps to file an appeal in time and has come to this Court with unclean hands. Accordingly, this petition seeking to condone the delay of 1521 days in filing the CMA is dismissed. Consequently, the CMA SR stands rejected. No costs.