JUDGMENT :

1. The original defendant No.4 has preferred this Civil Application for condonation of delay of 399 days caused in preferring Appeal from Order which he propose to file against the order dated 20.11.2018 passed below Exh-6/7 in Civil Suit No. 482 of 2016, whereby he has been restrained from transferring, alienating or creating interest of any third party in respect of suit property till final disposal of the suit.

2. The applicant has submitted that he was suffering from financial crisis and he had no funds to challenge the impugned order nor did he has funds to develop the subject land. He has submitted that now he has gained some financial strength through help of friends and relatives and. Therefore. he is contemplating development of the subject land either himself or through some developer. He has submitted that due to such financial crises, delay has occurred.

2.1 It is also contended that refusing to condone the delay will result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. It is also contended that if the delay is condoned, the respondent will not be affected and justice will be done to both the parties on merits. It is also contended that there has never been any intention on his part to flout any legal provisions or legal formalities and despite the best efforts on his part, delay has been caused only because of the circumstances beyond control. While reciting the decision of the Apex Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, reported in AIR 1998 SC 3222 and State of Haryana v. Chandramani and Ors, reported in 1996 3 SCC 132. It is prayed by the applicant to condone the delay of 399 days occurred in preferring the Appeal from Order.

3. The respondent No.1 has resisted the application and has submitted that delay is of about more than 1 year and the reason advanced for seeking condonation of inordinate delay of having financial crisis is not acceptable. It is also contended that there is not a whisper in the entire application as to how and when the applicant came out of such alleged financial crisis, if at all there were financial crisis as alleged. It is also submitted that the application is too vague and evasive as no particulars are furnished and/ or any documentary evidences produced in support of the alleged cause advanced for seeking condonation of delay. It is also averred that total inaction, negligence and want of bona-fides on the part of the applicant in the matter. It is also submitted that no sufficient cause has been shown by the applicant for condonation of delay and there is more than one year delay and, therefore, it is required to be rejected.

3.1 By way of narrating the facts of the suit, it is contended by him that the trial Court has granted injunction against the appellant after considering the admitted position and considering the documentary evidence as well as pleadings involved in the matter. It is also contended that the suit property is an ancestral property purchased by deponent's grandfather late Shri Gokuldas Ahuja who has expired on 4.8.2005 intestate after death of his grandfather, respondent No.2 executed registered sale deed dated 15.3.2011 in favour of the present applicant as he was sole owner of the property. According to the deponent, he has undivided share by virtue of birth in the family of the Suit property as co-parcenor. He has also contended that there is a clear cut findings by the trial Court that it is nobody's case that the execution of the sale deed by his father, was as a karta of HUF for any legal necessity. He has also contended that at the time of death of his grandfather, he was 9 year old and at the time of execution of sale-deed he was minor and, therefore, he has preferred the suit within 3 years from the date of attaining majority and, therefore, Civil Suit was preferred within a period of limitation. He has also submitted that the applicant- appellant hererin has been permitted to sale/transfe