Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. Perused the I.A.No.1/2012. Notice has been ordered on this I.A. to respondents No.1 and 2. The respondent No.2 reported to be dead. As such appeal abated against the deceased respondent No.2 vide order of this court dated 20.07.2015. The notice issued to respondent No.1(A) is held sufficient vide order of this Court dated 02.02.2017. In that context the learned counsel for the appellants argued on I.A. No. I.

2. In the affidavit filed in support of the application the learned counsel for the appellants by relying upon ruling reported in 2005 (4) KCCR 2281 in the case of State of Nagaland vs. Lipok AO and others, contended that, affidavit filed in support of the application if not contraverted by anybody, and in the affidavit specific grounds have been taken and genuine reasons have been stated for condonation of delay, such applications have to be considered magnanimously by the courts.

3. I have carefully gone through the application (IA No. I) filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. There is an inordinate delay of 1989 days in preferring the appeal. At Para No.3 it is narrated that the First Appellate Court has passed judgment and decree on 09.02.2007. The appellants could not prefer an appeal within the stipulated period of limitation, due to lack of knowledge about the disposal of the appeal, by the lower appellate Court, due to poverty and financial constraints etc. It is further contended that the advocate engaged by the appellants before the First Appellate Court has not at all informed them about the disposal of the appeal. As such they were not at all aware about the same. Apart from that the respondents/defendants have also not acted upon it and have kept quite for all these years. Till today the revenue entries are standing in the name of appellants. Therefore, they claimed that they being poor persons having no fixed source of income have left their village long back with their husbands in search of coolie work to Ratnagiri in Maharastra State for their livelihood on account of frequent draught situation in their village for several years. Therefore, they were not able to get information from their advocate with regard to the disposal of the said appeal. They have also claimed that their advocate made enquiry on 15.02.2012. Thereafter application for certified copies applied, obtained the same and filed this appeal.

4. On perusal of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above decision reported in 2005 (4) KCCR 2281 in the case of State of Nagaland vs. Lipok AO and others, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that;

“the condonation of delay, the proof by sufficient cause is a condition precedent for exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction vested in the Court. What counts is not the length of the delay but the sufficiency of the cause and shortness of the delay is one of the circumstances to be taken in to account in using the discretion. The expression sufficient cause is adequately elastic to enable the Court to apply the law in a meaningful manner, which sub-serves the ends of justice, that being the life-purpose for the existence of the institution of courts. Unless want of bona fides of such inaction or negligence as would deprive a party of the protection of sufficient cause is proved, the application must not be thrown out or any delay cannot be refused to be condoned. It is further observed that there is no general proportion that mistake of a counsel by itself is always sufficient cause for condonation of delay. It is always a question whether the mistake was bona fide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose.”

5. Therefore, in view of the said decision the party must establish to the satisfaction of the Court that, there was no such inaction or negligence on the part of the appellants in prosecuting the appeal before the trial Court. They must prove under what circumstances they had no knowledge about the pendency of the appeal