No order for condonation of delay given.

AR.Lakshmanan, J.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the Letters Patent Appeal.

2. L.P.A. No.69 of 1994 is filed by the appellants/ plaintiffs against the order of K.Swamidurai, J., in C.M.P. No.15486 of 1993 in A.S.SR. No.97114 of 1992 (now numbered as Appeal No.127 of 1994) dated 11. 1994 condoning the delay of 3,670 days in filing the appeal against the judgment and final decree dated 10. 1982 in I.A.No.19362 of 1980 in O.S. No.2443 of 1969 on the file of the Third Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. C.M.P. No.6549 of 1995 has been filed by the appellants to receive the documents filed as additional evidence. Appeal No.127 of 1994 has been filed by the respondents against the final decree passed in I.A. No.19362 of 1980 in O.S. No.2433 of 1969 on the file of the Third Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.

3. A preliminary decree was passed in the suit on 9. 1972 on a memo of compromise. The appellants filed a petition under O.26, Rules 13 and 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure for passing a final decree in accordance with the preliminary decree. The respondents did not file any counter. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed and he submitted a report Ex.C-1. Under the preliminary decree, items 1 to 3 of the plaint ‘A’ Schedule are to be equally divided and one such share shall be allotted to the appellants. The 1st defendant P.R. Ramanatha Mudaliar died after the filing of the final decree application and the respondents herein were impleaded as his legal representatives in the final decree proceedings. Since the respondents did not file any objections to the report of the Commissioner, the trial court accepted the Commissioner’s recommendation so far as the division of item No. 1 of the plaint ‘A’ Schedule is concerned. So far as item Nos.2 and 3 of the plaint ‘A’ Schedule are concerned, it is not known why both parties did not seek division of the same according to the preliminary decree, which provides for division of these two items also. Therefore, the trial court gave liberty to both parties to file a separate final decree application for the division of these two items.

4. After considering the other points, the trial court passed a final decree as follows:

“Item No. 1 of plaint ‘A’ Schedule will be divided into portions A and B in Exs.C-1 and C2 and portion ‘A’ is allotted to the respondents and portion ‘B’ is allotted to the petitioners. Exs.C-1 and C-2 will form part of the final decree. The petitioners are entitled to Rs.5,845 from the respondents and the share allotted to the respondents is charged for the payment of this amount. The petitioners and the respondents are given liberty to file a separate final decree application for division of items 2 and 3 of plaint ‘A’ Schedule and for apportioning the mortgage amount due as per clause 5 of the preliminary decree. The petitioners are also given liberty to file a separate application for realisation of the amounts claimed by them in the memo of calculation in a separate proceedings. The parties will bear their own costs. Time for deposit of non-judicial stamp one month.”

5. In pursuance of the final decree, the appellants filed E.P. Nos. 1803 and 1804 of 1992 on 7. 1992. In the meantime, the respondents on 21. 1992 sent a notice calling upon the appellants to settle the matter amicably, to which the appellants sent a reply on 12. 1992 stating that the final decree was passed on 10. 1982. Thereafter, the respondents filed an appeal in A.S.SR.No.97114 of 1992 and also C.M.P. No. 15486 of 1993 before this Court to condone the delay of 3,670 days in filing the first appeal against the final decree passed on 10. 1982. The affidavit filed in support of C.M.P. No. 15486 of 1993 proceeds on the basis that the respondents had knowledge of the final decree proceedings only on 12. 1992 when the appellants sent the reply to the notice issued by the respondents’ counsel, and since the delay in filing the ap