JUDGMENT :

(M.V. Muralidaran, J.) :

This petition has been filed by the petitioners to condone the delay of 528 days in filing the appeal against the judgment and order dated 13.3.2018 passed in O.S.No.67 of 2012 on the file of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Imphal East.

2. Originally, M.C.(RFA) No.26 of 2019 has been filed by the defendants 1 and 2 in the suit. Pending M.C.(RFA) No.26 of 2019, the second defendant died and his legal heirs were impleaded as petitioner Nos.2(a) to 2(e) as per the order of this Court dated 19.4.2021 in MC(RFA) No.6 of 2021. Similarly, the second plaintiff died pending M.C.(RFA) No.26 of 2019 and his legal heirs were impleaded as respondent Nos.2(a) to 2(e) as per the order passed in MC (RFA) No.10 of 2020.

3. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners, on being informed by his conducting counsel that judgment and decree has been passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Imphal East in favour of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.67 of 2012, instructed their conducting counsel to file an appeal against the judgment dated 13.3.2018 and after obtaining the certified copies of decree and judgment, appeal was filed on 10.8.2018 along with an application to condone the delay of 59 days before the District Judge, Imphal East. By the order dated 16.9.2019 passed in Civil Appeal No.12 of 2019, the District Judge, Imphal East held that the District Court, Imphal East has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the appeal as the value of the suit is Rs.1,56,000/- and, accordingly, ordered for presenting the appeal before the High Court.

4. Further case of the petitioners is that after obtaining the certified copy of the decree and judgment dated 16.9.2019, the conducting counsel told the first petitioner to engage another counsel as she would be unable to conduct the case in the High Court. Accordingly, the first petitioner tried his level best to engage a lawyer, but due to paucity of funds, time taken in raising money to pay the lawyer fee and after mobilising the money, he engaged the lawyer and the lawyer had taken time to draft the memo of appeal and miscellaneous application for condonation of delay. Hence, there is delay of 528 days in filing the appeal.

5. Resisting the delay condonation petition, the contesting respondents filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that the petitioners very negligently and also without taking proper care and caution filed the appeal before the District Judge, Imphal East along with an application for condonation of delay instead of filing the appeal before the High Court. It is stated that the petitioners and their counsel without going properly the provisions of law filed three times appeal before the District Judge, Imphal East with their own negligence and inadvertence of the provisions of law. It is stated that there is no reasonable ground for condoning the delay in filing the appeal and, therefore, the delay condonation application is liable to be dismissed.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.67 of 2012 dated 13.3.2018, the petitioners have filed the appeal before the District Court, Imphal East along with an application to condone the delay of 59 days and after condoning the delay of 59 days, the appeal has been numbered as Civil Appeal No.12 of 2019. He would submit that by the judgment dated 16.9.2019, the District Judge ordered for presenting the appeal before the High Court as the appeal suit has been valued at Rs.1,56,000/-.

7. The learned counsel further submitted that