Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3.Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. I have also perused the documents filed and the judgments referred to by them in support of their submissions.

4.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner strenuously contended that there is no difference in between a petition filed to condone the delay in presentation and the petition filed to condone the delay in representation and the trial court has failed to take note of the fact that a valuable right has accrued to the revision petitioner by condoning such a huge delay. He relied on the decision of this court reported in 2006(1)CTC 187 (Muthusamy, A. v. Muniammal) for the proposition that the very same principles as are applicable to condonation of delay in presentation would apply to the condonation of delay in re-presentation also. He relied on the decision of this court reported in 2002(1)L.W.397(Lalliammal v. Thulasi & 6 others) for the proposition that when the counsel has not re-presented the papers within the time, that is nothing short of a negligence and whatever right accrued to the other side because of the delay could not be lightly treated. The learned counsel relied on a decision of the Division Bench of this court reported in 2003(1)L.W.585 (Sundar Gnanaolivu v. Rajendran Gnanavolivu) for the proposition that whenever there is lack of bonafide or attempt to hoodwink the court by the party by filing an application for condonation of delay no indulgence should be shown by the court.

8.First let me consider whether there is any difference between a petition filed for condonation of delay in the proper presentation pursuant to Sec.5 of the Limitation Act and the petition to condone delay in re-presentation under Sec.151 of C.P.C.

9.In 1978 TLNJ 322 (cited supra), a learned Single Judge of this court held that there is a difference between these two petitions and the considerations relevant for a petition filed to condone the delay in presentation for a proceeding will not apply to a petition filed to condone the delay in re-representation of papers. The learned Judge went on to hold that notice to respondent in a petition filed to condone the delay in re-representation is not necessary and if any order is passed in condoning the delay in re-presentation, the other side is not said to be the aggrieved party and he cannot challenge the order before the High Court under Sec.115 of CPC. The relevant portion of the order reads as under: