The court emphasized the importance of credible reasons for delay in filing an appeal and the need for genuine explanations supported by evidence.

N.P. Gupta, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The registry has reported the appeal to be barred by 45 days. The appeal was filed on 010.2004. The report was made by the Registry, way-back on 110.2004. The application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act alleges, that the Counsel for the petitioner before the learned trial Court did not intimate about the decision of the suit, and that it was on 05.09.2004, that the Rspondent No. 1 and 2 approached the Tehsildar for correction of the entries, and the Tehsildar informed the petitioner, and invited objections if any. It is then alleged that on 08.09.2004, the petitioner suffered from Peoria, and was advised to take rest from 08.09.2004 to 23.09.2004, it is mentioned that the certificate shall be kept ready for perusal of the Court. According to the application, then on 30.09.2004, the petitioner approached his Counsel, and sought necessary information about the decision of the suit. It is then alleged, that the record of the case is not available in the Court of Gulabpura, as the same is transferred to the record-room at Bhilwara. The petitioner applied for certified copy of the record on 010.2004, and the same was received on 010.2004, and the appeal is filed on 010.2004. This is how the delay, is sought to be explained.

3. In response to the notice issued by this Court, the Rspondents No. 1 and 2 have submitted reply to this application, seriously contesting the same. The stand taken in the reply is, that the stories propounded by the petitioner, in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, are cooked up stories, inasmuch as, the conduct of the appellant, including Rspondents No. 3 and 4 is highlighted by pleading, that the plaintiff s evidence was closed on 010.2003, and thereafter despite several adjournments, no evidence was led, and nothing has been shown, as to why they did not contact their lawyer, since long time. It is also pleaded, that the case was pending in the Court of ADJ, Gulabpura, and the Counsel was Shri Ladu Lal Gurjar, whose office was at Ashind, and he conducted the case at Gulabpura, therefore, it cannot be believed, that the Counsel would continue to conduct the case, going all the way from Ashind to Gulabpura, for such a long time without instructions from their client. It is also pleaded that the Advocate, Ladu Lal Gurjar has a telephone, bearing No. 01480 220601, while there is a PCO in the village of the appellant, apart from the fact, that the appellant works on his tractors, and is working at present in Ziya Gaon (Madhya Pradesh), and is using Mobile Phone, bearing No. 07274218315. Regarding the sickness, it was contended, that certificate is not submitted alongwith the application. It was also alleged, that the appellant was having a workshop in the Ashind in the name of Sudarshan Tractor Repairs, and now is having tractors, while working in Madhya Pradesh, which shows, that the sickness certificate is a fake one. It is also contended, that the appellant was knowing about the progress of the litigation, since the beginning, and it is not correct to say, that he approached the Counsel on 30.09.2004 only, and that the affidavit of the Counsel has not been filed. Then in Para 5, it is contended that the certified copy was already applied way-back on 03.06.2004, then again on 06.08.2004, and were obtained within a period of limitation, and third time, the copy was applied on 010.2004, only for the purpose of cooking up a false story. Thus, in substance, it is sought to be contended, that the appellant was aware of the Judgment , his Counsel had already obtained the copy of the Judgment twice, and the whole story of contacting the Counsel on 30.09.2004, or of his illness, and of obtaining copy on 010.2004 is a myth.

4. After filing of this reply, a rejoinder was filed by the petitioner, wherein it was contended that, the Respondent No. 4, who was a joint purchaser, had misled the appellant by the time of trial of the s