JUDGMENT : C.M. Appln. No.1/2024 1. This is an Application to condone the delay of 592 days in filing the Regular Second Appeal. The Applicant/1 st defendant in the suit is a Bank. The Application is opposed by the 1 st respondent/plaintiff by filing the Counter Affidavit. The Applicant filed a Reply Affidavit to the Counter Affidavit and an Additional Affidavit. The Applicant filed I.A No.4/2024 and I.A No. 1/2025 to receive additional documents and the same are allowed. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the Applicant Sri.Muralikrishnan.C and the learned Counsel for the 1 st respondent Sri.Praveen K Joy. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant contended that the delay is properly explained by the applicant in the Additional Affidavit. The photostat copy of the certified copy of the judgment obtained on 31.01.2022 as per CA No.236/2022 was produced along with I.A. No.1/2024. It would show that the applicant had filed a copy application within time and had obtained a certified copy. The present appeal was filed using the certified copy obtained on 28.10.2023 as per C.A. No.3481/2023. It would indicate that the original certified copy obtained by the applicant was misplaced as contended by the applicant. The applicant is entitled to get exclusion of the major period on account of Covid pandemic and pendency of the matter before mediation. At any rate, the delay is to be condoned on payment of cost since the appellant is deeply aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, which is confirmed by the First Appellate Court. The learned counsel invited my attention to the merits of the matter also in this regard. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent contended that the delay is not properly explained by the applicant. The date on which the applicant came to know about the misplacement of the original certified copy is not disclosed in the Affidavit. The Execution Petition was filed on 13/03/2023 and the applicant would have received notice in the Execution Petition in March 2023 itself and thereafter the second application for certified copy is seen to have been filed only on 28/10/2023. If the applicant wanted to file the appeal immediately, the applicant would have applied for the certified copy at least immediately on receipt of the notice in the Execution Petition. If the applicant wanted to file the appeal immediately, the applicant would have applied for the certified copy at least immediately on receipt of the notice in the Execution Petition. With regard to the Covid period also, the period from 15/03/2020 to 28/02/2022 is liable to be excluded. But, the original certified copy was delivered on 31/01/2022. That means only 28 days is liable to be excluded from the delay of 592 days. Since, the 90 days limitation period is already excluded and the delay is calculated, the applicant is not entitled to exclude another 90 days in this regard. 5. I have considered the rival contentions. 6. The appellant/bank was the 1 st defendant in the suit. The other defendants were the cellular operators and their officers. The plaintiff filed the suit for Rs.12,21,005/- with interest from the defendants on the allegation that the plaintiff suffered a loss on account of online fraud due to the gross laches, negligence, and misconduct of the defendants. 7. The suit was filed in the year 2016 and the same was decreed on 20.08.2019. The suit was decreed in part directing the 1 st defendant to pay Rs.4,79,543/- to the plaintiff with interest @ 9% per annum on Rs.4,48,582/- from the date of the decree till realisation, and directing the defendants 2 to 5 to pay Rs.2,39,771/- to the plaintiffs with interest @ 9% per annum on Rs.2,24,291/- from the date of the decree till realisation with proportionate cost. The plaintiff filed A.S No. 141/2019, the 1 st defendant filed A.S No. 13/2020, and the defendants 4 and 5 filed A.S No. 95/2020 before the First Appellate Court, and all the appeals were dismissed by a common judgment dated 23.12.2021. The 1 st defendant filed the present Regular Second Appeal on 23.01.2024 with the above Application to condone the delay. 8. The 1 st defendant filed the present Regular Second Appeal on 23.01.2024 with the above Application to condone the delay. 8. In the original affidavit in support of the application to condone delay it is stated that the judgment and decree was passed by the First Appellate Court on 10.09.2023; that the application for the certified copy of the judgment was filed on 28.10.2023; that the date notified for appearance to receive the copy was on 13.11.2023 and the copy was delivered on 07.11.2023; that the Advocate by oversight has omitted to apply for the certified copy of the decree; that therefore application for certified copy of the decree was filed on 14.11.2023 and the date notified for appearance to receive the copy of the decree was on 25.11.2023 and the copy was delivered on 21.11.2023. 9. In fact, the judgment of the First Appellate Court was passed on 23.12.2021 and not on 10.09.2021. There is nothing in the Affidavit explaining the delay for the period from 23.12.2021 to 28.10.2023. It only stated that the certified copy was delivered on 07.11.2023 on the application submitted on 13.11.2023 and that the certified copy was delivered on 21.11.2023 on the application dated 14.11.2023. It is not stated as to why two applications were made successively. There is only a vague averment that the Advocate, by oversight, omitted to apply for the certified copy of the decree. There is no case of misplacement of any certified copy. It is further stated that after getting the certified copy of the decree, the applicant received notice in Execution Petition and there was mediation talks and the last date for mediation was on 10.01.2023. It is also stated that the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 is to be excluded from computing the period of limitation, and the period of limitation will start from 01.03.2022, and the appeal should have been filed within 90 days from 01.03.2022. 10. Thereafter the applicant filed I.A No.4/2024 producing photostat copy of the certified copy of the appellate court judgment, which the applicant obtained as per Copy Application No. 236/2022 dated 24.01.2022. From the endorsement it is seen that the said copy was delivered on 31.01.2022. 10. Thereafter the applicant filed I.A No.4/2024 producing photostat copy of the certified copy of the appellate court judgment, which the applicant obtained as per Copy Application No. 236/2022 dated 24.01.2022. From the endorsement it is seen that the said copy was delivered on 31.01.2022. It is in the affidavit in support of IA No. 4/2024, it is stated that the certified copy obtained by CA No.236/2022 was misplaced from the office of the counsel for the Bank, and hence, another copy application was filed on 28.10.2023. In the Reply Affidavit also the applicant has made the very same averments which is made in the affidavit in support of I.A No. 4/2024. Along with I.A.No.1/2025, the applicant produced the proceedings in EP No.121/2023 filed by the plaintiff, which would show that the Execution Petition was filed on 13.03.2021, the first posting was on 29.06.2023, mediation was ordered on 29.06.2023 and the matter was reported not settled in mediation, on 29.01.2024. 11. In the additional Affidavit filed by the applicant, the applicant has made averments consolidating the facts narrated above. 12. The appeal is filed producing the certified copy of the judgment obtained as per CA No. 2798/2023 dated 28.10.2023. The certified copy, as per CA No.2798/2023, is seen delivered to the applicant on 21.11.2023. In sum and substance, the contention of the applicant is that the certified copy obtained by the applicant on 31.01.2022 as per CA No.236/2022 is misplaced, and hence another copy application was filed on 28.10.2023 and obtained certified copy on 07.11.2023. The impugned judgment was passed on 23.12.2021. The applicant applied for certified copy after about one month. The fact of obtaining a certified copy as per CA No. 236/2022 and subsequent misplacement is not stated in the original Affidavit in support of the C.M. Application. When was the certified copy misplaced, and when did the applicant come to know about the misplacement is not revealed in any of the affidavits of the applicant. The applicant has produced photostat copy of the certified copy obtained as per C A No. 236/2022, it would indicate that the applicant had knowledge about the receipt of certified copy. When the applicant had knowledge about the receipt of the original certified copy, the applicant did not take any steps to obtain another certified copy without any delay when it came to know that the original certified copy was misplaced. When the applicant had knowledge about the receipt of the original certified copy, the applicant did not take any steps to obtain another certified copy without any delay when it came to know that the original certified copy was misplaced. It is difficult to believe that the original certified copy got misplaced after taking photocopy of the same. It probabilizes that the applicant made a subsequent copy application for certified copy on 28.10.2023 in order to advance a case of misplacement of the original certified copy. When the applicant was aware of passing of judgment on 23.12.2021 the applicant should have enquired about the receipt of the certified copy of the same within a reasonable time. The delay for the period from 31.01.2022 the day on which the original certified copy was received, to 28.10.2023 the day on which the subsequent copy application was submitted is not explained by the applicant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has ordered to exclude the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022. Even if the said period is excluded the applicant will get benefit of only 28 days and has to explain the delay from 01.03.2022 to 28.10.2022. Since the applicant has calculated the delay of 592 days after excluding the limitation period of 90 days, the applicant is not entitled to get reduction of another 90 days from the period of delay. 13. From the execution proceedings, it is seen that the Execution Petition was filed on 13.03.2023 and the first posting was on 29.06.2023. When an execution petition is filed in March, 2023 the notice therein would have been served on the applicant in March 2023 itself or at least before the next posting date on 29.06.2023. The applicant submitted second copy application only on 28.10.2023. It is seen that the matter was pending in mediation from 26.09.2023 to 29.01.2024 and the certified copy on the second application was received on 07.11.2023 and the appeal was filed on 23.01.2024. In view of the said fact the delay from 28.10.2023 till 23.01.2024 is sufficiently explained by the applicant. But since the delay from 01.03.2022 to 28.10.2023 is not explained and the delay is inordinate the applicant is not entitled to get condonation of the delay. Accordingly, the CM Application No. 1/2024 is dismissed. Regular Second Appeal Since CM Application No. 1/2024 is dismissed, the Regular Second Appeal is also dismissed.