JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the CPC”) questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 08.01.2019 passed by the learned District Judge, Kondagaon in an unregistered appeal, whereby the appeal preferred by them against the judgment and decree dated 07.09.2018 passed by the Civil Judge Class-II, Keshkal, District Kondagaon in Civil Suit No.7-A/2017, has been dismissed, holding it to be barred by time. The parties shall be referred hereinafter as per their descriptions before the trial Court.

2. The appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law:-

“Whether the finding of the lower appellate Court dismissing the appeal on the point of limitation, is perverse?”

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff instituted a suit claiming declaration of title and permanent injunction by submitting inter alia that the property in question bearing Khasra No.64/4, 64/11 and 78/20 ad-measuring 3.00, 6,00 and 1.30 acre respectively, total admeasuring 10.30 acre are situated at Village Silhat, Tahsil Keshkal, District Kondagaon. According to the plaintiffs, the property in question was originally held by their predecessor in interest namely Chaitu, who had two sons namely Amlu and Mahru, who was the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs. It is pleaded further that elder brother of their father namely Amlu was issue less and therefore, he employed defendant No.1 as his servant and the plaintiff’s father also used to call him in his house during festivals and other events, however, while taking advantage of it, he obtained the revenue papers mutated in his name without their knowledge, therefore, they have been constrained to institute a suit in the instant nature.

4. The defendants No.1, 2 & 5 while contesting the suit pleaded in their written statement that the suit property was held by said Chaitu who had given the same on lease to their father Lal Say for a period of three years and after the expiry of three years, no action was taken by him for taking back the land in question, therefore, they have prescribed their bhumiswami right over it.

5. After considering the evidence led by the parties, the trial Court arrived at a conclusion that since the plaintiffs have failed to establish the fact that they are the heirs of said Chaitu, therefore, they are not entitled to be declared the owner of it and, accordingly the suit was dismissed.

6. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and decree, an appeal was preferred by the plaintiffs on 26.10.2018 along with an application for condonation of delay of 16 days. It is pleaded in the said application that their counsel has not intimated regarding the delivery of the impugned judgment nor was it delivered in their presence and came to know about it on 04.10.2018 and immediately on the same day, they applied for obtaining the certified copy of it and, in pursuance thereof, it was delivered on 06.10.2018. It is contended further that an appeal was preferred immediately thereafter on 26.10.2018, therefore, delay of few days be condoned. The said application was contested by the defendants by submitting that since the sufficient cause for its delay has not been explained properly, therefore, the application is liable to be rejected.

7. The aforesaid application seeking condonation of delay in preferring the appeal has been rejected by the Court below observing inter alia, while referring to the order sheet dated 07.09.2018, that since the judgment was delivered in their presence and despite that a false allegation has been charged upon the Court that it was delivered not in their presence and, observed further that since the each days’ delay have not been explained, therefore, the plaintiffs have failed to establish the sufficient cau