JUDGMENT V.M. Jain, J. - After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, in my opinion, there are sufficient grounds to condone the delay of 67 days in filing the appeal. Hence the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed and delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by some of the defendants against the judgment and decree dated 12.2.2004 passed by the Addl. Distt. Judge, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff was accepted, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court were set aside and the suit of the plaintiff was decreed against the defendants restraining them from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property otherwise than by due process of law. 3. The plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming themselves to be in possession of the suit property. The suit was contested by the defendants. After hearing both sides and perusing the record, learned trial Court found that the plaintiff were in possession of the suit property. However, the relief for injunction was not granted since in the revenue record the suit property was recorded as charand and as such rights of the plaintiffs could not be protected. Resultantly, the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved against the same plaintiffs filed appeal. The learned Additional District Judge, after hearing both sides and perusing the record, accepted the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed restraining defendants 1 to 7 from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land while defendants 8 to 11 were restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land otherwise than by due process of law. Aggrieved against the same, defendants 9 to 11 have filed the present appeal in this court. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find no illegality in the judgment of the learned Addl. District Judge, which may require interference by this court in the present appeal. The plaintiffs are proved to be in established possession over the suit property. That being so, in my opinion, the learned Addl. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find no illegality in the judgment of the learned Addl. District Judge, which may require interference by this court in the present appeal. The plaintiffs are proved to be in established possession over the suit property. That being so, in my opinion, the learned Addl. District Judge was perfectly justified in granting injunction in favour of the plaintiffs restraining defendants 8 to 11 from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property otherwise than by due process of law. In view of this decree passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, the defendants appellants are at liberty to take possession from the plaintiffs in accordance with law. In my opinion, no substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal. Hence the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.