JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India assails the judgment and order dated 20.06.2018 passed by the learned 4th Additional District Judge, Bharuch in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2017. By the said judgment and order, the learned first appellate Judge was pleased to condone the delay of 02 years and 05 months caused in filing the execution petition against the judgment and decree dated 26.08.2001, passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Amod in Regular Civil Suit No. 53 of 1999.

2. Facts in nutshell of the case on hand are that the petitioners are the original defendants in the captioned civil suit filed by the respondents herein – original plaintiffs for declaration and permanent injunction before the learned civil Court concerned at Amod, District: Bharuch, which came to be decreed by order dated 26.08.2001 as compromise took place between the parties. In filing of the execution petition, since there was a delay of about 02 years and 05 months, the respondents – plaintiffs filed a Civil Misc. Application No. 1 of 2016 before the learned Principal Civil Judge, Amod, which came to be rejected vide order dated 06.03.2017 and hence, the respondents – plaintiffs filed the aforesaid appeal before the learned first appellate Judge, which came to be allowed by way of impugned judgment and order, being aggrieved of which, the petitioners – original defendants are before this Court by this petition.

3. Heard, learned advocate Mr. Varun G. Rai for the petitioners – defendants and learned advocate Mr. Faimuddin Saiyed for the respondents – plaintiffs.

3.1 The learned advocate for the petitioners – defendants, with all vehemence at his command, submitted that the learned first appellate Judge has committed a grave error in allowing the appeal and thereby, condoning the delay in filing the execution petition, which was filed almost after 15 years of the judgment and decree is passed in the civil suit, that too, without assigning any reasons for the same. It is submitted that the grounds for delay were not germane and no sufficient cause was shown so as to condone the delay and accordingly, he requested that this petition may be allowed and the impugned judgment and order may be set aside.

4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Faimuddin Saiyed for the respondents – plaintiffs, while resisting this writ petition and supporting the impugned judgment and order submitted that the learned first appellate Judge has rightly allowed such application as sufficient cause was shown and was appreciated by the learned first appellate Judge in proper perspective. He submitted that the learned first appellate Judge has rightly observed that the reasons stated in the appeal memo are true and genuine and the appellant is required to be given a chance to file the execution petition. He further submitted that the consent decree was passed in the main suit, which could not be executed in time. Further, the same is not challenged for any reason whatsoever and accordingly, the said decree has attained finality. Besides, the original plaintiff had died and his heirs were not knowing about the compromise decree and when they came to know, the wife of the original plaintiff being a lady and since was not knowing the nitty-gritty of law, could not file the execution petition in time and delay had occurred, which is rightly condoned by the learned first appellate Court and hence, he submitted that no interference is required at the hands of this Court and this petition is requested to be dismissed.

5. No other and further submissions have been made.

6. Regard being had to the submissions made and considering the material placed on record, it appears that the Regular Civil Suit No. 53 of 1999 filed by the respondents herein – original plaintiffs came to be decreed by judgment and decree dated 26.08.2001 as compromise too