JUDGMENT :

MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, J.:— This civil second appeal, which is reported to be time barred by 202 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, being poor agriculturists, could not file this appeal in time. He submits that since, the delay in preferring the appeal is bonafide, it needs to be condoned.

3. Heard. Considered.

4. The explanation offered in the application filed under Section 5 of the Act of 1963 seeking condonation of delay of 202 days is far from satisfactory. Merely because the applicants are poor agriculturists, it is no ground ro condone the inordinate delay.

5. In view thereof, the application does not deserve acceptance.

6. However, in the interest of justice, the civil second appeal has also been heard on its merit which has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 08.08.2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 4, Ajmer (Rajasthan) (for short “the learned appellate Court”) in Civil Appeal No. 34/2015 (61/2015) whereby, while dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellants/defendants (hereinafter referred to as “the defendants”), the judgment dated 13.04.2015 passed by the Civil Judge, Nasirabad, District Ajmer (for brevity “the learned trial Court”) decreeing the Civil Suit No. 26/2013 filed by the respondent/plaintiff (for short “the plaintiff”) for mandatory and permanent injunction, has been upheld.

7. The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction stating therein that he was under ownership and possession of a piece of land measuring 106 feet × 70 feet under a Patta issued by the Gram Panchayat. Alleging that the defendants were trying to encroach upon a part of it, the decree as aforesaid was prayed for.

8. The defendants in their joint written statement, denying the averments made in the plaint, submitted that the area of the subject property was 93 feet × 27 feet and not 106 feet × 70 feet as claimed. It was averred that rest of land was under their ownership and possession. Dismissal of the suit, therefore, was prayed for.

9. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed four issues including relief. After recording evidence of the respective parties, the learned trial Court decreed the suit vide its judgment and decree dated 13.04.2015 and the civil first appeal preferred there against by the defendants has also been dismissed by the learned appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 08.08.2016.

10. Assailing the impugned judgment and decree dated 08.08.2016, the only contention advanced by the learned counsel for the defendants is that the learned Courts erred in failing to appreciate that the actual area of the subject piece of land was 93 feet × 27 feet and not 106 feet × 70 feet as claimed. He, therefore, prays that the civil second appeal be allowed, the judgment and decree dtd. 8.8.2016 be quashed and set aside and the civil suit be dismissed.

11. Heard. Considered.

12. Indisputably, the Gram Panchayat, the competent authority, has issued the Patta (Exhibit-1)of the subject land in favour of the plaintiff measuring 106 feel × 70 feet. Both the Courts have found the plaintiff to be in possession of the area allotted to him by the Gram Panchayat on the basis of evidence on record.

13. The documents relied upon by the defendants in support of their claim that they were under ownership and possession of the rest of the land, were disbelieved as the same did not bear their names or the land to which the same pertained.

14. Since, the concurre