Parties are bound by averments in sworn affidavits and cannot attribute omissions to counsel to condone delay.

The petitioners (defendants 3 and 8-12) sought to challenge a decree for declaration and injunction granted in O.S.No.32 of 2001 by the District Munsif Court, Sathankulam.

They filed a first appeal before the Subordinate Judge, Tiruchendur, with a delay of 78 days, accompanied by I.A.No.226 of 2017 to condone the delay.

The first petitioner claimed he was incapacitated by fever and joint pain, preventing him from contacting counsel until the second week of January 2017.

However, the first petitioner did not testify; instead, the third petitioner gave evidence as P.W.1.

The Appellate Court dismissed the application, leading to this Civil Revision Petition.

1. Whether the petitioners established "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the 78-day delay in filing the first appeal.

2. Whether a party can disown omissions or deficiencies in a sworn affidavit by attributing them to the drafting of their advocate.

The court applied Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which requires a petitioner to establish "sufficient cause" for delay.

The court emphasized that the length of delay is secondary to the sufficiency and bona fides of the reasons provided.

The court reinforced the principle of the sanctity of pleadings and sworn affidavits, holding that litigants are bound by their contents to prevent changing stances for convenience.

The Court observed that while the first petitioner cited personal illness as the reason for delay, he failed to explain why the other five petitioners did not take steps to file the appeal within the limitation period.

The Court found it significant that the first petitioner avoided the witness box—thereby avoiding cross-examination on his health claims—while the third petitioner testified as P.W.1, proving that other petitioners were active in the litigation and the first petitioner was not solely in charge.

Regarding the petitioners' argument that deficiencies in the affidavit were the advocate's fault, the Court rejected this, holding that since the party signs the affidavit, they must take responsibility for its contents.

The Court reasoned that allowing parties to blame advocates for poor pleadings would defeat the objective of pleadings and strip sworn statements of their legal sanctity.

It held that the petitioners failed to properly explain the delay and that the First Appellate Court’s order contained no material irregularity.

The holding confirms that "sufficient cause" must be substantiated by all parties to an appeal if they are jointly seeking relief, and a party cannot escape the consequences of a lean or deficient affidavit by blaming their legal counsel.

All connected miscellaneous petitions were closed without costs.