APPAJI Vs. HONNAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the appellants counsel on IA No.1/2022 where there is a delay of 1477 days in filing the application to condone the delay and in support of the application, affidavit is sworn to by the first appellant in the second appeal and he has stated that all of them are hailed from rural area, not having much education or knowledge about the legal proceedings and after entrustment of the first appeal to their advocate they were not able to follow the same and dismissal of appeal came to know in the year 2017 and due to illness of their father who was suffering from cancer could not be able to file an appeal and he died on 13/1/2019 and thereafter, his brother also died on 12/9/2021 and hence delay has to be condoned.

(2.) The counsel for the respondents would submit that the first appellant who is a clerk working in Bangalore as advocate clerk and he cannot contend that he was not having any knowledge about filing of an appeal and also counsel brought to notice of this Court that earlier suit was filed and preliminary decree was passed and thereafter final decree proceedings was initiated in the year 1989 and father was also party to the said compromise and thereafter mutation was also entered in respect of the properties and properties were also sold and the suit was filed in the year 2006, even though there was a decree in the year 1989 i.e. final decree. The counsel also would vehemently contend that they cannot file a fresh suit and they can execute the decree if it is not executed and also appeal was dismissed in the year 2016 itself and delay has not been properly explained and there is a delay of almost 6 & 1/2 years i.e. 1477 days and the same has not been properly explained and the reasons given are also not satisfactory and the same has to be dismissed on the ground of delay itself.

(3.) In reply to the arguments, counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that these appellants have not sold any property subsequent to the FDP and the property was sold by the respondent in favour of respondent No.3, but these appellants have not acted upon.