Delay in filing appeal must be satisfactorily explained, particularly in fraud cases, to warrant consideration by the court, adhering to the clean hands principle for relief.

JUDGMENT :

H.P.SANDESH, J.

1. This matter was listed for admission on 23.10.2025 and this Court heard the matter for sometime and the learned counsel for the appellant sought time going to discuss the matter with his client and counsel for the respondent also submits that issue can be sorted out by negotiation and hence, this Court adjourned the matter to 25.10.2025, and the counsel for the caveator/respondent No.1 and 2 made the submission on 25.10.2025 that the learned counsel for the appellant's brother suffered heart attack and admitted to hospital and hence, this Court adjourned the matter to 07.11.2025 and on 07.11.2025, both counsel for respective parties made the submission that there is an element of settlement in the matter and this Court made it clear that if no settlement in the matter, both the counsels are directed to argue the matter on the next date of hearing without fail and posted the matter to 24.11.2025 and on 24.11.2025 both counsels submits that there is an element of settlement and once again adjourned the matter to 01.12.2025. This Court heard the Senior Counsel on 01.12.2025 and again counsel for the appellant made the submission that he will discuss with client once again and also furnishes two citations and same is taken on record. Now, new counsel argued the matter in length till 1.21 p.m., without his Vakalath on record and even not sought permission of this Court. This Court heard the matter and counsel submits that he has filed the Vakalath in the Registry, but no acknowledgment is produced to that effect before the Court for having filed Vakalath and on verification also not yet filed Vakalath.

2. The main contention of the counsel before this Court that both the Courts have committed an error and submits that the judgment and decree is obtained by playing fraud before the Trial Court and contend that though this appellant has been arraigned as defendant No.4 and no service of notice and he was placed ex-parte and judgment is obtained and Trial Court passed an order that sale dated 20.10.2023 executed by defendant Nos.1 to 3 through their attorney in favour of 4^th defendant is not binding on the plaintiff and granted the relief of plaintiff is entitled for 1/4^th share in the suit schedule property by metes and bounds.

3. The counsel submits that being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, an appeal is filed in R.A.No.112/2022 before the First Appellate Court. The counsel would vehemently contend that the First Appellate Court has not considered the matter on merits and only taken note of that there was a delay of 10 years, 4 months, 18 days in filing this first appeal before the First Appellate Court and the same has not been satisfactorily explained. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court the First Appellate Court proceeded in an erroneous approach and though considered the point for consideration whether the Trial Court has committed an error in holding that the plaintiff has failed to establish and proved the burden casts upon her and whether the impugned judgment is erroneous, perverse, illegal, capricious and resulted in miscarriage of justice, warranting interference by this Court, and also whether the delay caused in filing the appeal has been satisfactorily explained in order to condone the delay, but not considered the Point Nos.1 and 2 and proceeded to pass an order only on the Point No.3. Even the Trial Court extracted Article 116 and 123 of the Limitation Act while passing an order and discussed that prescribed time limitation is 30 days or 90