Consequently, a Division Bench of Justice N. Sathish Kumar and Justice GK Muthukumaar upheld the orders of the Single Judge refusing to condone delays of 1,161 days in representing the plaint and 1,181 days in paying the deficit court fee. It also held that the appellant's conduct amounted to an abuse of the process of law and imposed costs of Rs 25,000 in each of the two appeals.

“We find that by paying a mere court fee of Rs.10/-, for a money claim of around Rs.2.5 crores and thereafter representing the plaint and paying the deficit court fees after three long years, the appellant has made a mockery of the entire judicial system and abused the legal process, warranting the imposition of heavy costs. This conduct of the appellant amounts to showing total disregard and disrespect for the legal system,” the High Court rapped the appellant who had challenged the Single Judge orders.

Expressing shock at the conduct of the appellant, the Court said, “The Registry had rightly returned the plaint and called for payment of the deficit court fees. Thereafter, it took three long years for the appellant to represent the plaint for the first time on 2.8.2022. However, this was done without complying with the requirement of paying the deficit court fees. Finally, the court fee was paid only on 15.10.2022.”

“From the above, we find that the callous conduct of the appellant in representing the plaint and in paying the deficit court fee is shocking. It also raises serious doubts about the intention of the appellant to prosecute this lis. Therefore, this callous and lethargic attitude of the appellant is highly deplorable. It amounts to harassing the respondents under the prolonged a prolonged threat of legal proceedings. Such conduct amounts to an abuse of the process of law and should not be encouraged by the Courts,” the Bench held.

Further, the Court rejected the appellant's reasoning representation of plaint and payment of deficit court fee was delayed due to the onset of COVID-19, saying that he failed to satisfactorily explain the cause for delay.

“The onset of the Covid-19 pandemic might constitute sufficient cause, still, the same has to be satisfactorily explained by the appellant while seeking condonation of delay, which in this case is huge. We also find that, though the reason for the delay has been attributed to the Covid-19 pandemic, the same has not been satisfactorily explained,” the Court said.

It added, “Though the appellant has stated that the delay was caused by the Covid-19 pandemic and the time taken to mobilise the funds to represent the application, we find that the said averment is very vague and would by itself not constitute sufficient cause. Further, there is no explanation whatsoever, much less a satisfactorily explanation, for the long period of delay in representing the plaint and paying the deficit court fees.”

Accordingly, the Bench dismissed the appeals challenging the Single Judge order. It further imposed costs of Rs 25,000 in each of the two appeals, noting that the appellant's callous attitude prolonged the dispute, causing seven years of litigation, agony and expenses to the respondents.