Pratap Krishna Lohra, J. - (1.) LEGAL representatives of appellant -defendant have filed this second appeal under Section 100 CPC to challenge the impugned judgment and decree dated 20th of March, 2006 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur (for, short, 'learned lower appellate Court), whereby learned lower appellate Court has affirmed the judgment and decree passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Jodhpur (City), Jodhpur dated 18.03.2002.
(2.) THIS appeal is filed after delay of 2344 days, therefore, appellant has also moved an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. Averments contained in the application reads as under: - 1. That the impugned judgment and decree was passed by learned appellate Court on 20.3.2006. 2. That it is only in the last of year 2010 one of the appellants, namely, Rajveer Singh came to know about the aforesaid proceedings as after dismissal of first appeal defendant -appellant Shri V.S. Mertiya (father of the appellants) died and the appellants were not known to the facts of the litigation. Shri Rajveer Singh collected certified copies of judgments as aforesaid but was not aware of the consequence because the lis was affecting only the appellants Anand Singh and Surendra Singh. Further, when the appellant Surendra Singh came to hear the whispers about the demolition steps to be taken at the instance of plaintiff he collected papers from appellant Rajveer Singh. That because of the eldest brother Anand Singh being in service in Indian Airforce and was posted out of station for all the time and the appellants inter -se could not meet and have a dialogue on the matter.
(3.) THAT just before three months Shri Anand Singh has been transferred at Jodhpur and when after meeting the appellants tried to enquire about the matter it came to the knowledge that some part of the construction is going to be demolished, which is done, will deprive the appellants from using their property in question. Thus, without wasting any time contacting the counsel are preferring this second appeal before this Hon'ble Court.;