JUDGMENT :

1. This civil second appeal, which is reported to be time barred by 1044 days, is accompanied with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for brevity “the Act of 1963”) seeking condonation of delay.

2. Reiterating the averments made in the application, learned counsel for the applicants submits that they were not informed by their counsel regarding decision of the civil first appeal and they came to know of it when the Nazir came to serve the warrant of execution application filed by the respondents in the month of February, 2012 and thereafter, this civil second appeal was preferred without any further delay. He, therefore, prays for condonation of delay.

3. Heard. Considered.

4. Absence of information by the counsel can hardly be reckoned as satisfactory explanation for condonation of inordinate delay of 1044 days. No reason has been furnished in the application as to why the counsel was not contacted by the appellants for a period of about three years. The equity comes to the aid of a vigilant litigant and inordinate delay cannot be condoned in favour of a litigant who is negligent and indolent about status of his case.

5. A coordinate Bench of this Court has, in case of Jetaram & Ors. Versus Tari Devi:MANU/RH/0221/2021, dealing with an identical situation, held as under:-

“17. The sum and substance of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the additional affidavit is that the appellants were not informed by the counsel about the decision dated 22/2/2014. The said plea raised apparently is specious, inasmuch as the counsel, who was representing the appellants died on 4/4/2016 i.e. after more than two years. It is not indicated by the appellants as to between 22/2/2014 and 4/4/2016 and thereafter till January, 2020 whether they made any effort/inquiry to find out the status of the appeal. It cannot be comprehended that a party once entrusting a case to the counsel would not care to even try to meet the counsel to find out the status of the case for over six years and as such, apparently, said submission regarding counsel not informing is without any basis.

18. A perusal of the original application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, contents whereof have been quoted hereinbefore, indicates that a stock plea was raised that the counsel did not inform about the outcome and as soon as the appellants became aware of passing of the judgment by the appellate court, they rushed to the office of counsel, obtained copy of the judgment and rushed for filing the appeal. In fact, it is not even indicated in the application filed initially that the counsel had died in the year 2016 and it is only when the Court found that the application was laconic, time was sought and additional affidavit was filed, wherein, for the first time, it was indicated that the counsel has died. In fact, the submission made in the initial application is that the copy of the judgment was obtained from the office of the counsel, which submission now appears to be per se incorrect.

19. The standard practice in seeking condonation of delay by putting the blame on the counsel allegedly not informing about the outcome of the litigation, cannot be countenanced in each and every case where the party, even if the allegation is true, chose not to approach the counsel for six long years and as such, besides the fact that the plea raised is apparently incorrect, in view of the averments contained in the application filed initially and the additional affidavit, the same cannot be accepted.”

6. Since, this Court is not satisfied that the applicants were prevented by a sufficient cause for preferring the civil second appeal within limitation, the application filed under Section 5 of the Act of 1963 does not merit acceptance.

7. However, in the interest of justice, the learned counsel for the appellants has been heard on merits of the case.

8. This civil second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree d