AND I.A.No.1 of 2019 IN/AND APPEAL SUIT No.611 of 2019 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY I.A.No.1 of 2019 is an application filed by the petitioner/appellants seeking condonation of delay of 2484 days in the filing of the instant appeal.

2. The petitioner/appellants are the plaintiffs in the suit. The petitioner/appellants had filed a suit for partition and separate possession of the plaint schedule property and claiming one share to each of the plaintiffs in the said property.

3. The suit i.e., O.S.No.187 of 2007 got dismissed vide judgment and decree, dated 11.10.2012. Though the judgment was passed on 11.10.2012, the instant appeal has been filed only on 04.11.2019 along with the condone delay petition, seeking condonation of 2484 number of days in the filing of 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised the ground of poverty and ill-health of the plaintiffs and on the ground of the appellants having left the State for want of livelihood, to be the reason for the delay to have occurred.

5. However, perusal of the contents of the condone delay petition would clearly establish that the suit was dismissed after hearing all the parties to the suit including the plaintiffs which would establish that till the suit was decided, the plaintiffs were very much staying in close proximity. Further, the condone delay petition would also show that infact the plaintiffs were present in Hyderabad itself during the said period, as would be evident from paragraph No.2 of the condone delay petition.

6. In the given factual backdrop, it is very difficult to accept the grounds raised by the appellants seeking condonation of delay. It is hard to accept that having filed a suit for partition; the parties would not call up their respective counsel ascertaining the outcome of the suit.

7. The delay of 2484 days i.e, roughly seven years of time, is highly inordinate and to make things worst for the appellants, the reasons assigned also do not seem to be plausible, satisfactory or justified explanation having being provided for the huge delay that has occurred in the filing of the 8. It is by now a well settled proposition of law that applications for condonation of delay should not be accepted in a mechanical manner as a matter of routine. The parties seeking condonation of delay has to give satisfactory and plausible explanation, justifying the delay that has occurred. The relief of equity or the discretionary powers to be exercised particularly when it comes to condone delay petition, the same cannot be extended to the indolent person who sleeps over his right, without any justifiable cause or reasons and permits things to settled down without pursuing their claim or rights effectively.

9. In the absence of any justifiable grounds being reflected in the condone delay petition, we are of the considered opinion that no strong case for allowing I.A.No.1 of 2019 has been made out. Accordingly, the same deserves to be and is accordingly rejected.

10. I.A.No.1 of 2019 filed by the petitioner/appellants seeking for condonation of delay of 2484 days stands rejected. As a consequence, the A.S.No.611 of 2019 also stands dismissed.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

P.SAM KOSHY, J NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J Date: 21.01.2025 AQS