JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. Rule. The rule is made returnable immediately with the consent of and at the request of the learned Counsel for the parties.

3. The petitioners are the Decree Holders who had instituted execution. The decree orders the eviction of the respondents (Judgment Debtors) and also directs some payment of arrears.

4. The execution was dismissed for default and non-prosecution on 20/9/2017. Therefore, the petitioners filed an application on 21/3/2018 for restoration. Since there was a delay of about five months, an application was made for condonation of delay.

5. By the impugned order dtd. 4/12/2018, the Executing Court has dismissed the Application for condonation of delay by observing that no sufficient cause was shown.

6. In the Application at Exhibit B-1, the Decree Holders had stated that her Advocate, Ms S. Naik, inadvertently forgot to note down the next hearing date, and further, the case slipped out of her mind. The Court has held that this was nothing but sheer negligence on the applicant's part, mainly because applicant no.2 was also an Advocate. The Court has also recorded that the execution was more than five years old, and