1. By this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 29th September 2008 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari Courts in MCA No.2 of 2008 whereby he dismissed two applications made by the petitioners, one under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and another under Section 14 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in preferring an appeal and excluding the period from 18th May, 2007 to 5th May, 2008.

2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the petitioners predecessor in interest Ms. Harnam Kaur had preferred objections in execution no.3 of 1996 along with two other persons viz. Ms. Mahender Kaur and Mr. Jagjit Singh in March, 2000. These objections were dismissed by the learned Civil Judge by his order dated 30th March, 2006. Ms. Mahender Kaur and Mr. Jagjit Singh filed appeals against the order dated 30th March, 2006. However, the present petitioners did not prefer an appeal within the period of limitation and preferred an appeal in the year 2007 being Execution FA No.5 of 2007 before this Court. When the matter was listed before this Court on 28th May, 2007, counsel for respondent brought it to the notice of the Court that the appeal would lie only before the District Judge and not before the High Court. The respondent also drew attention of the petitioner’s counsel and Court to provisions of Section 39(1)(a)(iv) of Delhi High Court (Amendment) Act, 2003. This Court observed that the original value of the suit in this case was only Rs.1,01,030/- and, therefore, in terms of the provisions of the Delhi High Court (Amendment) Act, 2003, the appeal would not lie before this Court. However, the counsel for appellants therein (petitioners herein) wanted to go through the provisions of law. Ultimately, when the Execution FA No. 5 of 2007 came up for hearing on 24th April, 2008, this Court directed return of the appeal and other appeals preferred by other objectors on the ground that this Court had no jurisdiction, holding inter alia that the appeal should be preferred before the Court of competent jurisdiction. After return of the appeal, the present petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge along with applications under Section 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed as there was a delay in filing the appeal initially even before the High Court and condonation of delay was sought and the application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act was filed to exclude the period during which the appeal was pursued by the petitioners herein before this Court.

3. The learned ADJ in the impugned order extensively quoted the judgments relied upon by both the parties and then observed that the application under Section 5 made by the petitioners show that they did not wish to file a separate appeal and they relied upon the appeals filed by their objectors against the same order, although they had not joined them in the appeal. In the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act the petitioners had taken a plea that the co-sharers i.e. the other two objectors (who had preferred an appeal within time) had assured them that they would protect the interest of the petitioners but later on the petitioners were asked by them to join them in settlement. The petitioners then realized that they were least bothered about their interest. The trial court also observed that the appellants though may not have been served with the notice of the appeal preferred by other objectors, but the plea taken by the appellants in the execution itself shows that they were fully aware of the appeal preferred by other appellants. Their contention itself shows that despite being aware of the appeal, they did not pursue for their alleged right, thus there was no reasonable ground to condone the delay. The trial Court also observed that there was no provision