JUDGMENT 1. - This civil regular first appeal under section 96 CPC is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 13.11.1992 whereby the learned Additional District Judge No. 4, Kota decreed the civil suit No. 299/1988 for a sum of Rs. 39,300/- against 11 defendants including the appellant. 2. Since this appeal was filed after a long delay of 3642 days, an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act was moved by the appellant along with his affidavit. Reply of this application alongwith affidavit of the respondent-Roop Chand is on record. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties on application under section 5 of the Limitation Act. Before adverting to this application, brief facts of the case are that the respondent-a registered partnership firm filed a civil suit against 11 defendants on 9.1.1986 for eviction and arrears of rent of suit premises with the averments that defendant Nos. 1 to 6 (appellant is the defendant No. 5) are partners of defendant No. 7-a partnership firm and one shop mentioned in para 2 of the plaint was rented out to this firm on 9.6.1982 on monthly rent of Rs. 1,300/-. 4. Written statements by defendant No. 1 as partner of the firm were filed on various dates and thereafter, the defendants did not appear. Learned Trial Judge after recording the evidence decreed the suit vide impugned judgment dated 13.11.1992. 5. Now the question arises as to whether there is sufficient ground to condone the delay of 3642 days in filing this appeal? Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no partnership firm in the name of defendant No. 7, the appellant never received summons from the Court, he never authorised defendant No. 1 to file any written statement on his behalf and the appellant came to know about the judgment and decree for the first time when the notice of the execution was received by him, thereafter he applied for copy of the judgment and decree on 8.7.2002 and copies were received by him on 26.7.2002 and he submitted the documents to Shri Amarjeet Singh Advocate but due to illness, he could to file the appeal in time. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellant filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC to set-aside the exparte Magistrate decree dated 13.11.1992 and in that application it was admitted by the appellant and two other defendants that they got information of this exparte decree on 5.3.1993. That application No. 318/1996 was dismissed by the learned Trial Judge vide order dated 17.11.1999 and thus there is no ground to condone the delay. 6. I have considered the said submissions. It is significant to say here that it is not mentioned in this application that as to when the appellant got information from the Executing Court. Further on perusal of the order of the learned Trial Judge dated 17.11.1999 passed on application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC in civil misc. application No. 318/1996, it is event that the appellant and two other defendants admitted this fact that they got information of this judgment and decree on 5.3.1993 and the present appeal was filed in this Court on 3.2.2003. Thus, there is absolutely no explanation of this extra-ordinary delay in filing this appeal. Consequently, application under section 5 of the Limitation Act is rejected. Since the appeal has been filed after a period of limitation of 3642 days, the appeal itself is also dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******