- (1.) .This Civil Revision application has been filed against the order dated 23.7.2008 passed by the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Title Appeal No. 109 of 2006 rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Mr. Sahni submitted that liberty was given to the petitioner to raise the objection in regard to the amount of interest modified in preliminary decree, by order dated 13.1.1995 which was affirmed by this Court in Civil Revision No. 122 of 1995(R) on 29.11.1995. He further submitted that the petitioner came to know on 28.1.2002 that a final decree was passed on 11.11.1998 and thereafter, he applied for the certified copy of the same, but same was not available on record, and therefore, there was a delay in filing the appeal, which should have been condoned.
(2.) IT appears from the said orders dated 13.1.1995 and 29.11.1995 that petitioner was given liberty to file appeal against the final decree in which he could raise objections, raised by him, to the amount of interest calculated in the modified decree. Thus, it was his duty to keep track of preparation of final decree, if he wanted to file appeal. His explanation that he was waiting for preparation of final decree cannot be accepted. Petitioner had made a bald and vague statement that he came to know on 28.1.2002 that the final decree was passed on 11.11.1998, without disclosing as to how and from what source he came to know about preparation of final decree. It is not possible to believe that the petitioner had no knowledge about the preparation of final decree in 1998. Thus, the appeal filed by the petitioner was hopelessly barred by limitation, if not for about seven years and seven months, at least for more than three years for which there is no satisfactory explanation. It is true that a liberal approach is taken in condoning the delay, but it is also true that the petitioner was required to explain the long delay to the satisfaction of the Court. There is no explanation for the delay from 11.11.1998 to 28.1.2002. The explanation for the delay after 28.1.2002 is irrelevant. The learned Court below had jurisdiction to pass the order. I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this Civil Revision application is dismissed. However, no costs.;