( 1 ) THE petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 10th March, 2006 in Civil Misc. 35/2005 on the file of the and additional District Judge, Bijapur, have presented the instant revision-petition. ( 2 ) THE respondents herein had filed a suit in O. S. No. 192/1995 for partition and separate possession claiming that, they are the sisters of one Nabisab. The said suit came to be decreed. They being aggrieved by the same, petitioners herein have filed the Regular Appeal in R. A. No. 13/1998 and the said appeal has been dismissed against the second respondent on the ground that, steps were not taken and the matter was posted for arguments. Thereafter, the matter had come up for consideration on 27th January, 2004. Since the appellants were absent, the appeal was dismissed for default. Assailing the correctness of the said order passed in R. A. No. 13/1998 on 27th January, 2004. petitioners herein have filed Civil Misc. No. 35/2005. Along with the said civil miscellaneous petition, the petitioners have also filed IA. II for condonation of delay in filing the miscellaneous petition. The said application filed by the petitioners had come up for consideration before the Ilnd additional District Judge, Bijapur dated 10th march. 2006 and the Court below after hearing both sides and after considering the relevant material available on file, on the basis of the pleadings of both parties, framed necessary issues for consideration. LA. II filed in civil Misc. 35/2005 under O. 41. R. 19 read with S. 151 of Code of Civil Procedure was rejected and consequently the miscellaneous petition filed also stood dismissed on the ground that, there is delay of one year and nine months and the same is neither reasonable nor satisfactory. Assai ling the correctness of the impugned order passed by the learned ilnd Additional District Judge, Bijapur, as referred above, petitioners herein felt necessitated to present the instant revision-petition. ( 3 ) LEARNED senior counsel appearing for petitioners, vehemently submitted that, the court below has committed a grave error and illegality in not considering the case made out for setting aside the order passed by the Court below dated 27th January, 2004 in R. A. No. 13/1998 which was dismissed for default. He submitted that. ( 3 ) LEARNED senior counsel appearing for petitioners, vehemently submitted that, the court below has committed a grave error and illegality in not considering the case made out for setting aside the order passed by the Court below dated 27th January, 2004 in R. A. No. 13/1998 which was dismissed for default. He submitted that. P. W. 1 Nabilal has categorically stated that, neither the counsel for the petitioners nor the learned counsel for respondents has informed them about the dismissal of the regular appeal. The Court below, except referring the evidence of the parties in its order at internal page 8, has not considered nor given any specific finding. He further submitted that, when it is the specific case of the petitioners before the Court below that, the counsel who represented the petitioners in regular appeal has not intimated the dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution on 27th January, 2004 and that, they came to know of the same only when they received the notice in final decree proceedings, the court below ought to have considered the same and allowed the application. He submitted that, due to communication gap between the learned counsel for petitioners and the petitioners and the lapses on the part of learned counsel for petitioners in not intimating the result or" the appeal, the valuable rights of the petitioners cannot be deprived and, therefore, he submitted that, the impugned order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside. Further, he has taken me through the reliance placed by the Courts below on the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Lakkavva shrimant Holkar v. Vittappa, reported in ILR 2003 Kair 584 : (2003 AIR Kant HCR 99) and pointed out that, the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The trial Court placing reliance on the aforesaid judgment has not considered the specific case made out by petitioners and rejected the application filed for condonation of delay. Therefore, he submitted the impugned order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside. The trial Court placing reliance on the aforesaid judgment has not considered the specific case made out by petitioners and rejected the application filed for condonation of delay. Therefore, he submitted the impugned order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside. ( 4 ) PER contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents vehemently submitted that, the instant revision-petition filed by petitioners is liabile to be dismissed as devoid of merits on the ground that, petitioners are not diligent in prosecuting the case except pleading and making a bald statement that, the counsel appearing for them has not intimated regarding the dismissal of the case for default on 27th January, 2004. To substantiate his submission, he has taken me through the order passed in R. A. No. 13/1998 and pointed out that, the case has been dismissed as early as on 30th January, 2003 making it clear that, if steps are not taken by the next date of hearing, the said appeal would stand dismissed. Therefore, the matter has been posted on 25th march, 2003. On that day. since no steps were taken as against deceased second respondent the appeal was dismissed as against second respondent. Further, it was observed that, since it is a partition suit and the appeal is dismissed as against second respondent, the whole appeal stands dismissed for non-prosrecution as the appeal in part as against single respondent in absence of other respondents does not survive. Therefore, the Court below by its order dated 25th March, 2003 has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners in part as against second respondent. Thereafter, after lapse of nearly 60 days, i. e. on 28th may. 2003, the respondents have filed the; application for recalling the order, dismiss-ing for non-prosecution along with the application for bringing the legal representative'; of deceased second respondent. The said application had come up for consideration before the Court below and notice was ordered against respondents Nos. 2 (a ). (b), (e), (f) and (g) on 15th October. 2003. Time was granted to take necessary steps in respect of unserved respondents. In spite of giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioners to take necessary, steps in respect of deceased second respondent, neither the learned counsel for petitioners nor the petitioners have taken any steps. When the matter was listed for consideration on 28th November. 2003. Time was granted to take necessary steps in respect of unserved respondents. In spite of giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioners to take necessary, steps in respect of deceased second respondent, neither the learned counsel for petitioners nor the petitioners have taken any steps. When the matter was listed for consideration on 28th November. 2003, learned counsel for appellant was absent and steps were not taken and, therefore, the appeal was dismissed against respondent Nos. 2 (a), (f) and (g ). Again the matter was posted on 8th January, 2004 and 27th January. 2004. When the case was called out, neither the petitioners nor their counsel was present. Hence, there was no other option for Court below but to dismis; the appeal for default. Not even a single word regarding this aspect of the matte'r has been whispered in the entire application filed by the petitioners for condonation of delay of one: year nine months in filing the miscellaneous; petition. Therefore, he submitted that, the: court below has rightly considered these aspects and taking into consideration the totality of the case on hand, has rightly decreed the suit as early as during 1998. In view of non-taking of steps well in time in spite of giving sufficient opportunity, the trial Court has rightly considered and dismissed the application and consequently the miscellaneous petition filed by petitioners. Therefore, he submitted that, the instant revision-petition filed by petitioners also is liable to be dismissed in limine. ( 5 ) I have heard learned senior counsel appearing for petitioners and learned counsel appearing for respondents. After careful perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Ilnd Additional District Judge, bijapur, it is manifest on the face of the said order that, the Court below has not committed any error much less illegality in passing the impugned order. After careful perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Ilnd Additional District Judge, bijapur, it is manifest on the face of the said order that, the Court below has not committed any error much less illegality in passing the impugned order. The Court below has discussed the oral and documentary evidence available on file threadbare and after taking into consideration the other relevant factors available on file has specifically observed that, the conduct of these petitioners right from the very beginning of filing of the appeal goes to show that, they are grossly negligent and indifferent and they have kept quiet even after dismissal of the appeal till filing of the final decree proceedings and now have placed reliance on the lapse on the part of the learned counsel for petitioners in not intimating the petitioners about the dismissal of the appeal. The trial Court has considered the said specific contention taken by the learned counsel and recorded a specific finding that, all these petitioners being the residents of Bijapur city only, it was obligatory on their part to approach their counsel and know about the progress of the appeal filed by them; Further, the trial Court has specifically recorded that, the respondents who are aged about more than 60 years, have obtained the decree for partition and separate possession after hard fought litigation and the petitioners who have filed the said appeal having obtained the interim order of stay of the operation and execution of the decree have not shown any interest in prosecuting the appeal. After careful perusal of the entire order sheet maintained by the trial court in R. A. No. 13/1998. it is evident that, petitioners have not shown any diligence in prosecuting the appeal and the said appeal had been dismissed for default even on earlier two occasions and even subsequently also, it was restored and petitioners have failed to take steps against some of the legal representatives of deceased second respondent. it is evident that, petitioners have not shown any diligence in prosecuting the appeal and the said appeal had been dismissed for default even on earlier two occasions and even subsequently also, it was restored and petitioners have failed to take steps against some of the legal representatives of deceased second respondent. The trial court further observed that, all these aspects prove beyond all reasonable doubt that, the only intention of these petitioners who have suffered a decree was to prolong the litigation as long as possible, as a result of which, one (if the decree-holder died and it was important to note that, even if their counsel had not informed them about the date of hearing, it was the minimum requirement on the part of the petitioners to have contacted their counsel and followed up the proceedings which was pending adjudication, all of them being [he residents of Bijapur city only. ( 6 ) FURTHER, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for respondents, when the matter was dismissed for default, these very petitioners themselves have filed the application for bringing the legal representatives of deceased second respondent on record and an application as recalling the dismissal order, 'therefore, it is clearly evident that, all these petitioners were well aware and acquainted with the proceedings and knowing fully well, they have intentionally and deliberately not stated the true facts in the application filed along with the affidavit for condonation of delay in filing the miscellaneous petition. This is nothing but taking the court for a ride, abuse of process of Court and the system as a whole. Therefore, interference by this Court, in the well considered order passed by the Court below after nearly a decade is not jutifiable nor the petitioners have made out any convincing or clinching grounds to entertain the instant revision-petition. ( 7 ) FURTHER, it is not in dispute that, there is a delay of more than one year nine months in filing the miscellaneous petition. The said delay has not been explained satisfactorily by assigning cogent reasons. Further. in the affidavit, it is explained that, petitioners were not intimated either by the learned counsel for the petitioners or learned counsel for respondents. But they have not chosen to file at least the affidavit of the counsel, who represented them, to that effect nor have they examined the counsel. Further. in the affidavit, it is explained that, petitioners were not intimated either by the learned counsel for the petitioners or learned counsel for respondents. But they have not chosen to file at least the affidavit of the counsel, who represented them, to that effect nor have they examined the counsel. The trial Court has rightly placed reliance on the [judgment of this Court reported in ILR 2003 Kar 584 : (2003 AIR Kant HCR 99) and dismissed the application for recalling, in which judgment, this Court has specifically observed that, the expiry of the period of limitation Tor making an application gives rise to a right in favour of the decree-holder to treat the decree as binding between the parties, that is to say, after the expiry of the period of limitation, legal right which was accrued to the decree-holder by lapse of time should not be light heartedly disturbed and it has also been held in the said decision that, the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. Therefore, the trial court (observed that, the facts of that case are more or less similar to the facts of the present case. After careful perusal of the affidavit filed along with the application for condonation of delay in filing the miscellaneous petition, which is produced along with the instant revision-petition at internal page 31, it is seen that, the petitioners except making an omnibus statement that, there is inordinate delay of one year nine months in filing the miscellaneous petition, have not explained the said inordinate delay properly. Whenever an application for condonation of delay is filed, it is duty cast on the applicant to explain each day's delay in a satisfactory manner by offering cogent reasons and that, much credibility cannot be given to the explanation offered by petitioners. Therefore, I am of the considered view that, at any stretch of imagination, interference by this Court is not justifiable nor I find any good grounds as such made out by the learned counsel for petitioners. Therefore, in view of the well considered order passed by the Court below, interference by this Court is not justifiable. ( 8 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the instant revision-petition filed by petitioners is dismissed as devoid of merits. Petition dismissed.