Honble GUPTA, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Perused the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Registry has reported the appeal to be barred by about a month, and the explanation given in the application under Section 5 is that the appellant is a labour class employee, and is working in a factory far from Udaipur, and that the counsel informed about the judgment at his permanent address of the village Kanpur but as he did not visit Kanpur frequently he came to know of the aforesaid judgment on 7.12.2003. Then, he contacted the advocate, collected the papers, and reached Jodhpur on 14.12.2003. In my view, the suit relates to right of way said to be situated outside the house of the plaintiff itself, and even plaintiff has gone away from Udaipur, then, it was his duty to inform the counsel about his latest address where he could be informed about the judgment. Admittedly the counsel had sent the information at his permanent address rather the address where the property itself is situated, and where the plaintiff claims in the plaint to be living. This is one aspect of the matter. 3. The other aspect is that if at all the plaintiff had gone away from the place, it was for him to have kept track of the case. 4. Thirdly, in any case the appellant alleges to have come to know of the judgment on 7.12.2003, and then come to Jodhpur on 14.12.2003, still the appeal has been filed as late as on 19.12.2003, and there is no explanation as to why the appeal could not be filed immediately. 5. Thus, in my view, it cannot be said that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within time, rather it appears that the appellant was taking the things leisurely, and at his own convenience. In my view, hardly any sufficient cause is made out. 6. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is, therefore, dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed as time barred.