Pratibha Rani, J.

1. RFA(OS) No. 80/2007 has been filed by the appellants Ashok Kumar Sharma and Anil Kumar Sharma, both sons of Late Sh. Nand Lal Sharma impleading Ram Parshad Rohatgi (plaintiff in CS(OS) No. 2646/1998) as respondent No. 1 and other legal heirs of Late Sh. Nand Lal Sharma as respondents No. 2 to 6. Anil Kumar Sharma was a bachelor and died during pendency of the appeal. Since all the legal heirs of Late Sh. Nand Lal Sharma are already on record and infact in the appeal, the relief, if any, has been claimed only against respondent No. 1 Ram Parshad Rohatgi (as CS(OS) No. 2646/1998 filed by him was decreed), appeal was heard as no further substitution was required.

2. The appellant has placed on record written submissions.

3. Submission made by learned counsel for respondent No. 1 is that the appeal is barred by limitation and there is no application seeking condonation of delay, hence on this score alone the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

4. The appellant Ashok Kumar Sharma is litigating in person. Efforts of the Court to provide him legal assistance proved futile. Proceedings reveal that on 04.12.2007 Sh. Rakesh Tikku, Advocate (now Senior Advocate) graciously offered to do this matter pro bono with a view to assist the appellant but could not succeed.

5. Another attempt was made by the Court on 03.10.2008 by requesting Mr. R.M. Sinha, Advocate to appear as an Amicus Curiae on behalf of the appellant to assist the Court. He also submitted before the Court on 14.07.2009 that he had faced considerable difficulty in obtaining instructions from the appellants who are present in person. The appellants Ashok Kumar Sharma and his brother Anil Kumar Sharma (now dead) submitted that they shall argue the appeal themselves, hence Mr. R.M. Sinha, Advocate was discharged.

6. A perusal of provision of order 41 Rule 3A CPC shows that when an appeal is presented after the expiry of the period of limitation specified therefore, it shall be accompanied by an application supported by affidavit setting forth the facts on which the appellant relies to satisfy the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within such period.

7. Noting here that the appellant is not even clear in the appeal as to what he is impugning nor ready to understand the implication of non-filing of application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act requiring him to give reasons for condonation of delay, we are left to deal with a situation where the appellant is neither willing to avail legal assistance nor understand the meaning/effect of the various orders referred to by him in the written submissions. Mere claiming before the Court that he is a poor person but not even ready to avail any legal assistance at the expenses of High Court Delhi Legal Service Authority, has left us to find out for ourselves what the appellants intend to convey and deal with the contentions made in the written submissions ourselves on the basis of record. The prayer made in the appeal can give us some clue about the order impugned, hence the prayer made in this appeal is extracted as under:-

‘It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to see the circumstances and poor condition of the plaintiff pass the decree order in the favour of plaintiff and against the defendant No. 1 (tenant) on the basis of the order dated 01.08.2003 by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain and base the written argument dated 27.07.2005 or submission dated 15.12.2005. Please pass the appeal against the decree order dated 05.07.2006. Regular first appeal base of the last judgment dated 14.09.2007.

This Hon’ble Court may be pleased such the further orders as may be complete justice on the facts and circumstances of the case.’

8. Since the contentions are in unsystematic and illogical manner, we are left with no option but to deal with the same in the manner they have been raised. Which order is under challenge?

It is not clear.

9. After going throu