JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a second appeal against judgment and decree dated 2-3-1974 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division in Appeal no. 322 (Farrukhabad) arising out of suit no. 16/73 under Sections 176/178 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. Respondent no. 1 Chhada filed the suit claiming to be the co-bhumidhar or certain land alongwith the defendant appellants Gaya Prasad and Collector and seeking partition of his th share. Both the courts below have decreed the suit. The defendant have now come up in second appeal. 4. The Additional Commissioner pronounced the judgment dismissing the first appeal on 2-7-1974. The second appeal has been filed on 12-7-77 i.e. after a delay of three years and four months. An application has been moved for condonation of delay along with an affidavit the appellate has stated, that he had filed the appeal before the commissioner, Allahabad Division through Sri Ram Narain Srivastava, advocate, and that Sri Ram Narain Srivastava had been engaged by the appellant through his local counsel at Fatehgarh, Sri Prabash Chandra Saxena, Advocate. The appellant alleges that he kept on enquiring from Sri Prabash Chandra Saxena about any information that he might have received from their counsel at Allahabad regarding the hearing of the appeal by the appellant was assured by Sri Prabash Chandra Saxena that the appeal is fixed for hearing, intimation will be received from the counsel Shri Ram Srivastava. The appellant further alleges that in the middle of May, 1977 he received a notice about some execution case filed by the plaintiff respondent and then he come to Allahabad on 26-5-77 and contacted Sri P.N. Sexana, Advocate who after looking into registers in office informed the appellant that his first appeal had been dismissed on 2-3-1974. After receiving this information, the appellant got the appeal filed on 12-7-77. This affidavit has been challenged by the counsel for the plaintiff respondent. In his objection dated 23-8-77, the learned counsel for the respondent has stated that the affidavit of the appellant explaining the delay in filing the appeal beyond Limitation is full of false and incorrect allegations, that none of the reasons described in the affidavit are correct, and that the appellant has deliberately sworn a false affidavit and is liable to be prosecuted. 5. 5. The affidavit of the appellant, Gaya Prasad does not disclose sufficient reason for condonation of the delay. The judgment of the trial and the first appellate courts are concurrent. If the appellants were still to file a second appeal, they should have taken the trouble to ensure that the appeal was in fact actually filed. If they left the matter entirely in the hands of their counsel and the counsel did not oblige them, they cannot seek any indulgence from the court on this account. It is certainly open to the appellants to take any legal action against their counsel, but this court is not concerned with this aspect of the matter. On the other hand this court has to see whether sufficient ground has been established for condonation of delay of over three years. The fact that the appellants remained sleeping for more than three years and only woke up when some execution notice was received by them, shows that they were negligent and did not exercise due diligence and caution. Apart from the fact that there is no reason at all why the appellants did not personally come to Allahabad to get the appeal filed, no reason has also been shown why they did not enquire in the year 1974 itself from their counsel at Allahabad whether the second appeal had been filed and, if so, on what date. They did not make any such enquiry in the years 1974, 1975, 1976 and 1977. Again, Sri Ram Narian Srivastava, Advocate, who was the appellant's counsel in first appeal and who is alleged by the appellants to have been instructed by them to file a second appeal in this Court, has, in fact been attending this court everyday. No efforts have been made by the appellants to produce an affidavit from Sri Ram Narain Srivastava to the effect that in fact he had been instructed to file the second appeal but failed to do so for any reason. 6. I thus hold that it will be great injustice to allow condonation of the gross delay in filing this second appeal. The second appeal is hereby dismissed being grossly time-barred and incompetent.