The main legal point established in the judgment is that the expiration of the period of limitation gives rise to a right in favor of the decree holder to treat the decree as binding between the parties, and the delay in filing the Appeal should be justified with a sufficient cause to be condoned.

ORDER :

1. Heard on I.A. No. 1 - Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay occurred in the filing of the present Appeal.

2. The present is a Defendant No. 2's First Appeal assailing the Judgment and Decree dated 31.1.2010 passed by the 10th Additional District Judge, Raipur, in Civil Suit No. 06-A/2006.

3. The present Appeal has been filed with a delay of 3100 days. It would be relevant at this juncture to take note of the relevant contents of the I.A. No. 1, which for ready reference are being reproduced herein under:

“2. That the learned Trial Court has partly decreed the Suit and ordered to allot the plot area 4,000 Sq. Ft. or in case of fail to allot the plot refund the amount of Rs. 600/- per Sq. Ft. with 2% interest per month to the Plaintiff, that the Defendant No. 2 has ready to comply the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Trial Court and also ready to plot area 4,000 Sq. Ft. to the Plaintiff/Respondent No. 1 but the Plaintiff has refused to accept the offer of the Appellant/Defendant No. 2 and demanded Rs. 600/- per Sq. Ft. from the date of filing of the Civil Suit, that the Appellant Society is not in position to refund the huge amount demanded by the Plaintiff though the Society is ready to allot plot 4000 Sq. Ft. to the Plaintiff in other area (Kota Colony), the copy of proposal given by the Appellant Society is being annexed as per Annexure A-2.

3. That the learned Executing Court has issued possession warrant against the Appellant therefore the Appellant has filed the instant Appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 13.1.2010 after lapse of 3100 days, that the delay in filing of Appeal is bonafide and unintentional.”

4. The Respondents No. 1 and 2 i.e. the Plaintiffs had filed before the learned Court below a Civil Suit for possession and permanent injunction against the Defendant No. 2 i.e. the present Appellant. The claim of the Plaintiffs was that the Plot No. 322 under the Defendant No. 2 has been wrongly retained by the Defendant No. 3 in spite of the allotment of the Defendant No. 3 having been cancelled and the allotment of the said Plot No. 322 being made in favour of the Plaintiffs.

5. The learned Court below while partly allowing the said Civil Suit ordered in the following terms:

^^vr% oknhx.k dk nkok Lohdkj dj fuEukuqlkj vkKfIr ikfjr dh tkrh gS%&

¼1½ Áfroknhx.k Øekad&2 oknhx.k dks fu.kZ; fnukad ls nks ekg ds vanj ;fn miyC/k gks rks Hkw[k.M Øaekd&322 ds vkdkj dk vFkkZr 4]000 oxZQqV vkdkj dk Hkw[kaM mUgsa fof/kor Ánku djsa vFkok 4]000 oxZQqV ds fglkc ls Áfr oxZQqV 600@& :i;s dh nj ls jkf'k Ánku djsa vkSj mDr jkf'k in nkok ÁLrqfr fnukad ls olwyh fnukad rd 2 Áfr'kr ekfld dh nj ls lk/kkj.k C;kt Ánku djsaA

2- Áfroknh Øekad&2 Lo;a dk ,oa oknhx.k dk oknO;; ogu djsa] Áfroknh Øekad&3 viuk Lo;a dk oknO;; ogu djsA**

6. A point to be considered at this juncture is that it is not the case where the Appellant/Defendant No. 2 has been proceeded ex-parte. The impugned Judgment and Decree is a bipartite Order. The Appellant/Defendant No. 2 were fully aware of the impugned Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Court below. They were also represented by a Counsel before the learned Court below. Therefore, it cannot be also presumed that they were not aware of the limitation of the filing of appeal.

7. Down the line, the Plaintiffs initiated execution proceeding against the Defendants and it is in the course of the execution proceeding that the instant Appeal has now been filed by Defendant No. 2 with a delay of more than 3100 days.

8. As has been reproduced in the preceding paragraph, the reason showing the delay in the application for condonation of delay was that when possession warrant having been issued by the Executing Court and further that the Appellant/Defendant No. 2 not having financial capability of honouring the second part of the Judgment and Decree whereby the learned Court below has held that in the alternative if the Defendant No. 2 was not in a position to offer 400