Heard the petitioner who appeared as party-in-person and Mr.R.Subramanian, learned Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent.
2. By order dated 12.08.2015, this Court declined to condone the delay of 1579 days in filing the Second Appeal as against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.220 of 2008, on the file of the Principal District Court, Tiruchirappalli confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.50 of 1996, on the file of I Additional Subordinate Court, Trichirappalli. Since the petitioner has not explained the reasons for the inordinate delay of 1579 days, this Court has dismissed the petition.
3. This Court, while dismissing the petition, has considered all the points raised by the petitioner and found that the petitioner has not explained the reasons for the delay in proper manner. It is settled position that in the absence of sufficient cause shown by the petitioner for condonation of delay, the delay should not be condoned. The ratio laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in H.Dohil Constructions Company Private Limited Vs. Nahar Exports Limited and another reported in (2015)1 Supreme Court Cases 680 squarely apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In paragraph Nos.24 and 25, the Honourable Apex Court has held as follows:
?24. When we apply those principles of Bhattacharjee case (reported in (2013)12 SCC 649) to the case on hand, it has to be stated that the failure of the respondents in not showing due diligence in filing of the appeals and enormous time taken in the refiling can only be construed, in the absence of any valid explanation, as gross negligence and lacks in bona fides as displayed on the part of the respondents. Further, when the respondents have not come forward with proper details as regards the date when the papers were returned for refiling, the non-furnishing of satisfactory reasons for not refiling of papers in time and the failure to pay the court fee at the time of filing of appeal papers on 06.09.2007, the reasons which prevented the respondents from not paying the court fee along with the appeal papers and the failure to furnish the details as to who was their counsel who was previously construed with the filing of the appeals cumulatively considered, disclose that there was total lack of bona fides in its approach. It also requires to be stated that in the case on hand, not refiling the appeal papers within the time prescribed and by allowing the delay to the extend of nearly 1727 days, definitely calls for a stringent scrutiny and cannot be accepted as having been explained without proper reasons. As has been laid down by this Court, courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both the parties and the same principle cannot be given a go-by under the guise of liberal approach even if it pertains to refiling. The filing of an application for condoning the delay of 1727 days in the matter of refiling without disclosing reasons, much less satisfactory reasons only results in the respondents not deserving any indulgence by the court in the matter of condonation of delay. The respondents had filed the suit for specific performance and when the trial court found that the claim for specific performance based on the agreement was correct but exercised its discretion not to grant the relief for specific performance but grant only a payment of damages and the respondents were really keen to get the decree for specific performance by filing the appeals, they should have shown utmost diligence and come forward with justifiable reasons when an enormous delay of five years was involved in getting its appeals registered.
25. We, therefore, find total lack of bona fides in its approach and the impugned order of the High Court in having condoned the delay in filing as well as refiling, of 9 days and 1727 days respectively, in a casual manner without giving any reason, much less acceptable reasons, cannot therefore be sustained. The appeals are allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Direction to admit the appeals of the respondents in RFAs Nos.268-88 of 2012 and 319 of 2012 is also set aside and shall stand dismissed. No costs.?
4. Now the petitioner has filed the above petition to review the order dated 12.08.2015 passed in M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2013 in S.A.(MD)SR No.50954 of 2013.
5. It is settled position that unless there is an error apparent on the face of the record, the review application cannot be entertained.
6. The petitioner appearing in person has not made out a case warranting interference by way of review under Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Since the petitioner is not in a position to point out any error apparent on the face of the record, I do not find any merits in the review application, which is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs..