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 thi