JANU NAIK Vs. KRISHNAPPA NAIK, S/O ANGARA NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second appeal is preferred by the legal heirs of 1st defendant calling in question concurrent findings of the Courts below decreeing the suit for declaration, partition and separate possession.

(2.) THE appeal filed beyond the period of limitation is accompanied by an application in Misc. Cvl.No.4709/ 2011 to condone the delay of 197 days. In the affidavit accompanying the application, appellant No.1(b), states that he is a rustic villager, an agriculturist by occupation, was informed of the lower appellate Court having dismissed the appeal and the need to file a second appeal. It is further stated that he could not approach the lawyer immediately as he had to obtain consent and consensus of all other appellants and secure their signatures on the vakalath to file the appeal and since some of the appellants were residing at far away places, was able to obtain their signatures on the vakalath during the second week of July 2010, whereafterwards, the appeal was filed. Hence the delay.

(3.) THE averments in the affidavit are short of material dates, particulars and satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay of 197 days. Each day's delay is not explained. The date on which appellant No.1(b)/ deponent became aware of the order of the lower appellate court; the date on which he met the lawyer; the dates on which the other appellants became aware of the dismissal of the appeal, are not forthcoming. In short, the deponent has failed to furnish relevant particulars in support of the explanation for the delay.