JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. This application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay of a period of 1252 days in preferring the second appeal against the judgment and order, dated 07.09.2004, passed, in Title Appeal No. 12/2002, whereby judgment and decree, dated 29.04.2002, passed, in Title Suit No. 53/1983, was upheld. 2. Heard Mr. A.R. Banerjee, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the applicants, who were defendants in the suit, and Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff-opposite party. 3. Since the period of delay is of as many as 1252 days, the reasons, assigned by the applicants for seeking condonation of delay, can be best gathered from the averments made, in this application, by the defendants-applicants. The relevant averments, made in this application, are, therefore, reproduced here in below: 3. That the humble Petitioners most respectfully state that the Petitioners immediately after passing of the lower Appellate Court's judgment and Decree intended to approach this Hon'ble Court within the time limit prescribed in that regard. But most unfortunately they were prevented by some unforeseen circumstances which had deterred them for preferring their appeal in time in spite of their best efforts and sincere endeavour which are given herein below. 4. That the Petitioners respectfully state that the Petitioner No. 1 being the only service-holder in the family, the other four Petitioners i.e. the Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 being humble cultivators and the Petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 being unmarried sisters all of them are/were fully dependent on the Petitioner No. 1, he having the capability and the capacity to conduct the case on their behalf and as such they entrusted him (the Petitioner No. 1) to do whatever was/is needful in the matters and to take all necessary steps on their behalf all through i.e. from trial Court to this Hon'ble Court, The other co-Petitioners reposed complete faith and entire responsibilities on the Petitioner No. 1 and the Petitioner No. 1 also in terms of their entrustment conducted the case on their behalf. 5. 5. That it is respectfully stated the Petitioner No. 1 however could not remain present on the date of final argument before the lower Appellate Court which had taken place on 23.08.2004 due to sudden occurrence of a personal problem and as such was not aware of the judgment which was kept reserved for pronouncement at a later date. Hence on 7.9.2004 when the learned Court of Appeal below pronounced the judgment by dismissing the appeal that fact was not known to the Petitioner No. 1 and so also the other Petitioners to apply for the certified copy of the judgment immediately. It is respectfully stated herein this connection that though the Petitioner No. 1 originally hails from village Likhakgaon of Bihaguri Mouza under Tezpur Police Station of Sonitpur district--he no longer resides in his ancestral home with the other four Petitioners above-named--he having permanently shifted to village--Kochgaon of Jamugurihat of Sontipur District since the last part of 2003. However, the Petitioner No. 1 on enquiry learnt about the dismissal of their appeal after more than one month i.e. on or about 16th day of October'04 when he visited his counsel at Tezpur, and applied for certified copy of the judgment and Decree immediately on 18th Oct.' 04 (17.10.04 was a Sunday) and for the said copy though notification for the requisite number of stamps and folios was made on 30.11.2004 the humble Petitioner No. 1 could not supply the same as he was lying ill at home due to severe indigestion and was not in a position to travel from his village home at Jamugurihat to Tezpur which is more than 55 Kilometres and could come only on 9.12.04 to receive the same. On receipt of the said judgment and Decree all the Petitioners conferred and decided to approach this Hon'ble Court for preferring a Second Appeal and for that purpose arrangement of necessary funds for expenses was proposed to be made in the meanwhile before expiry of the Appeal period which was on 20.1.05 (including the time available for certified copy) to send the Petitioner No. 1 to Guwahati. Accordingly arrangements were made and the Petitioner No. 1 was supposed to come down to Guwahati to meet senior counsel Mr. A.R. Banerjee with whom earlier also they had a rapport for preferring their proposed Second Appeal. Accordingly arrangements were made and the Petitioner No. 1 was supposed to come down to Guwahati to meet senior counsel Mr. A.R. Banerjee with whom earlier also they had a rapport for preferring their proposed Second Appeal. But most unfortunately the Petitioner No. 1 who was/is the main person as hereinbefore stated fell seriously ill because of dyspepsia, severe loss of appetite and became very weak to make movement which was finally diagnosed as infective Hepatitis by the Medical and Health Officer of the Battalion Hospital under whom the Petitioner No. 1 was put for treatment immediately. The Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 being rustic villagers/cultivators as herein before stated were not capable to come down to Guwahati for institution of their appeal. The other two Petitioners i.e. the Petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 being unmarried females with limited exposures were also not independent enough to pursue the matter without the help of their elder brother i.e. the Petitioner No. 1 and had no other alternative but to wait for his recovery with hopes and aspirations. Unfortunately because of the severity of the ailment the Petitioner No. 1 was in bed rest for three months till he recovered in the month of March, 2005 to undertake a Bus journey from his village Kochgaon of Jamugurihat to Guwahati, a distance of more than 215 kilometres by road. A true Photostat copy of the medical certificates issued by the aforesaid Medical and Health Officer towards the illness and treatment of the Petitioner No. 1 under him alongwith the original is annexed hereto and marked as 'Annexure-1'. 6. That it is respectfully stated that the Petitioner No. 1 after his recovery though became physically fit to resume his normal duty yet for the expenses which he had incurred for medical treatment cost him dearly and he had to manage the fund by taking loan from his friend. It is pertinent to mention here that the Petitioner No. 1 was working in Vartak, Border Road Organisation, a Military division at Tezpur and his service along with his co-workers was dismissed for which a litigation has been still pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Petitioner No. 1 was therefore hard-pressed for money. However collecting a handsome amount the Petitioner No. 1 came down to Guwahati on 24.3.05 to engage the above said Mr. The Petitioner No. 1 was therefore hard-pressed for money. However collecting a handsome amount the Petitioner No. 1 came down to Guwahati on 24.3.05 to engage the above said Mr. A.R. Banerjee a senior counsel practising before this Hon'ble Court for his/their proposed Second Appeal. But on arrival--the Petitioner No. 1 could learn that because of 3 days holidays due to Holi the above-named senior counsel was away to Shillong for some personal work and would be returning on 28th morning. The Petitioner No. 1 under the said fact and circumstances had to return home on the same day, as his stay in Guwahati for four/five days would cost him another good amount. The Petitioner thus returned with a mind to come down to Guwahati on 28th March' 05. But unfortunately owing to the long journey undertaken by him on the same day--the Petitioner No. 1 fell ill again due to relapse of his hepatitis fever requiring complete bed rest and constant medical care. The Petitioners therefore became unable to pursue their matter though time for preferring the appeal continued to run out. The Petitioner No. 1 after about taking rest for about a fortnight came down to Guwahati on 14th April, 05 on Garu Bihu day with a view to meeting the above-named counsel and hold conference with him. But unfortunately this Hon'ble Court being holidays for nearly a fortnight--the counsel of the Petitioner was away to Kolkata for medical check-up and was reported to be available on re-opening of the Court. The humble Petitioner No. 1 returned home with despair as he could neither engage his counsel nor could wait for his return. The Petitioner however with great difficulty came to Guwahati on 26th day of April 05--and held conference with Mr. A.R. Banerjee in his chamber who on scrutiny of the papers asked the Petitioner No. 1 as to whether the Petitioner had brought the copies of the pleadings in the trial Court beside copies of the evidence. Be it mentioned that the Petitioner carried only the Judgment and Decree of both the Courts below and the papers asked for were not with him. Be it mentioned that the Petitioner carried only the Judgment and Decree of both the Courts below and the papers asked for were not with him. The Petitioner No. 1 was told by the counsel that as the system of preparation of paper books was no longer existent--the memo of Appeal of the Second Appeal must contain the pleadings of the belligerent parties besides containing the Judgment and Decree of both the trial and the Court of Appeal below. Otherwise the proposed Memo of Appeal would not be acceptable in the registry of this Hon'ble Court. Hence the Petitioner was advised to bring those papers immediately to thwart further delay in the matter. The Petitioner accordingly returned back to his village in the same evening in order to meet his lawyer Mr. N.M. Das at Tezpur for collecting the aforesaid papers at the earliest. 7. That on the very next day the Petitioner went to the residence of Advocate Mr. N.M. Das who had conducted the case of the Petitioner in both the Courts below and told him about the requirement of the copies of the pleadings immediately and requested him to hand over those papers in the aforesaid back ground. The said counsel Mr. N.M. Das, on such request asked the Petitioner to come after a week so that the said counsel could trace out the brief from the heap of the disposed of cases in the Chamber. The Petitioner in the 1st week of May ' 05 came to the Chamber only to be disappointed to learn that the counsel had not been able to discover the brief of the Petitioner as yet and requested him to wait for some time. The humble Petitioner under such circumstances remained unable to come down to Guwahati as that coming would be a futile exercise for the aforesaid reason. The Petitioner was further informed that their appeal having been decided more than about eight months ago by the lower Appellate Court--The brief, if not taken back by the Petitioner somehow got tagged and/or misfiled with some other disposed of matter and it would take quite sometime to find out the brief with the relevant papers. 8. The Petitioner was further informed that their appeal having been decided more than about eight months ago by the lower Appellate Court--The brief, if not taken back by the Petitioner somehow got tagged and/or misfiled with some other disposed of matter and it would take quite sometime to find out the brief with the relevant papers. 8. The Petitioner as has been stated herein before resides in a village of Jamugurihat at a distance of more than 55 Kilometres from Tezpur and as such it is not possible physically as well as financially on the part of the Petitioner to come down to Tezpur every day in search of his brief. The humble Petitioner however was not at all negligent and as per asking of his lawyer the Petitioner came to meet Mr. N.M. Das the above-named counsel after about ten days and this time also the Petitioner got a negative reply in as mush as from the records, maintained in the Chamber there is nothing to show as to whether the brief with original papers was still lying with the disposed of the briefs in the Chamber. The Petitioner was further requested by the said Junior Counsel to check his residence where the Petitioner due to mistake might have kept aside the papers. The humble Petitioner was very much puzzled as regard the placing and/or misplacing of the said papers in as much as there being a shifting of the Petitioner from his ancestral home at village Likhakgaon of Bihaguri to his new abode at Kochgaon, Jamugurihat as has been stated in the foregoing paragraph sometime in the last part of 2003 and the humble Petitioner even by racking his brain could not remember the where about of the said papers. The humble Petitioner could not find out the brief containing the said papers even by rummaging about the whole house. Having failed to get hold of the same--the Petitioner returned to his lawyer Shri N.M. Das again to request him to obtain the copies of the said documents from the Court by applying for their certified copies as those were no where to be found in spite of strenuous search. Having failed to get hold of the same--the Petitioner returned to his lawyer Shri N.M. Das again to request him to obtain the copies of the said documents from the Court by applying for their certified copies as those were no where to be found in spite of strenuous search. But to the great relief of the humble Petitioner--he was informed by his counsel that the brief of the Petitioner containing those papers had been discovered from the Almirah where their new briefs which are yet to be prepared and filed are kept due to a bonafide mistake and as such the brief of the Petitioner was not lying with the disposed of matters as was wrongly presumed till the discovery was made in the last part of June' 05. The Petitioner collected the papers immediately and rushed to Guwahati without any further delay to meet his counsel in the first week of July, 2005 only to return back disappointed as this Hon'ble Court being on a fortnightly summer holidays from the first week of July, till the middle of the month the senior counsel was taken to Kolkata on health ground by his brothers. The Petitioner under the said facts and circumstances had no other alternative but to wait his return. Most unfortunately for the Petitioner their counsel had to prolong his stay because of his health condition which got deteriorated due to blockage in the heart and could return in the month of October prior to on set of long Durga Puja holidays. The Petitioner having learnt about the return of his counsel from his repeated queries came down to Guwahati as soon as possible and on meeting to hand over the papers i.e. the copies of the pleadings as asked for. The said senior in view of his health condition informed the Petitioner that their Second Appeal would be made ready during this ongoing Puja holidays by Dr. A.K. Bhattacharjee, an advocate appearing before this Hon'ble Court as his junior in several cases and would be filed through him immediately on re-opening of the Court to avoid further delay. The Petitioner was further told that at the time of hearing of their appeal--the said junior counsel would assist the Senior Counsel besides taking all necessary steps in the matter. The Petitioner by handing over the entire brief to the said Junior Counsel left with great relief. 9. The Petitioner was further told that at the time of hearing of their appeal--the said junior counsel would assist the Senior Counsel besides taking all necessary steps in the matter. The Petitioner by handing over the entire brief to the said Junior Counsel left with great relief. 9. That thereafter the Petitioner came down to Guwahati in the month of January, 2006 to enquire about his case. But the senior counsel's mother having died in the mean while he was away to Kolkata for performance of her Shraddha ceremony. The Petitioner tried to meet Mr. Bhattacharjee in the Court premise but he having not been found available the Petitioner returned back. The Petitioner and for that matter all the Petitioners were under bonafide belief that their appeal must have been filed/prosecuted by the junior counsel and necessary orders must have been obtained in that regard in as much as no development whatsoever after the passing of the Appellate Decree had taken place. 10. That thereafter the Petitioner in the month of October' 06 came down to Guwahati during Puja holidays and after visiting the residence of senior counsel learnt that the senior counsel had undergone a bye-pass surgery in National Heart Institute in New Delhi in the 1st week of October' 06 and was in complete bed rest for post-operative care. The Petitioner with great difficulty found out the address of Mr. Bhattacharjee who was staying in a lodge at Panbazar area permanently--but the said counsel's room was also found under lock and key and the Petitioner failed to get any definite information about him. 11. That the Petitioner respectfully states that the Petitioner is very much hard-pressed because of his dismissal from service under military organisation viz. Vartak along with his co-workers for which there is a litigation pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Besides the Petitioner because of recurring liver problem was keeping an indifferent health since long and as such it was/is not possible on his part to visit Guwahati frequently to keep track of his case. The Petitioner however was never negligent and was very much concerned as has been stated herein above. But because of the communication gap--there was no proper connection. 12. That the Petitioner finally in the month of August' 07 again came down to Guwahati to meet Mr. Bhattacharjee. The Petitioner however was never negligent and was very much concerned as has been stated herein above. But because of the communication gap--there was no proper connection. 12. That the Petitioner finally in the month of August' 07 again came down to Guwahati to meet Mr. Bhattacharjee. That time also when the Petitioner could not trace him in the Court premises--he enquired about the Senior Counsel with his other Junior who informed the Petitioner that though the Senior Counsel had recovered rapidly from his coronary problem yet because of the surgery--the Senior Counsel had developed certain postoperative complications such as loss of memory and/or amnesia, dementia warranting immediate medical attention from his surgeon in Delhi. Hence the said Senior Counsel was in Delhi from August till the end of November, 2007. The Petitioner immediately did not intend to disturb the Senior Counsel as he was not keeping a normal health and tried to contact Mr. Bhattacharjee. 13. That the humble Petitioner in the month of January' 08 fell ill again due to continuous fever and he also suffered from serious liver problem which was finally diagnosed as Malaria with Jaundice and for that the Petitioner was completely under medical care for more than two months. The Petitioner therefore deferred his visit and planned to come down during summer holidays of this Hon'ble Court medical advice. 14. That while the Petitioner No. 1 was planning his visit as aforesaid to know the actual position of their appeal--they were shocked to their skin when the Petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 were served with notice to show cause on 4.7.08 Title Execution Case No. 10 of 2008 arising out of Title Suit No. 53/83 from the Court of the Sardar Munsiff at Tezpur vide notice dated 13.6.08. The humble Petitioners more particularly the Petitioner No. 1 was very much baffled to learn about the said proceeding in as much as to the best of his information he did not know anything about their Second Appeal instructed to be filed before this Hon'ble Court as herein before stated. The Petitioner No. 1 made an enquiry in the office of the learned Munsiff in that regard on 30th June' 08. But when no order whatsoever as regard his proposed Second Appeal before this Hon'ble Court could be seen the Petitioner rushed to Guwahati on 2nd July' 08 and went to the lodge where counsel Mr. The Petitioner No. 1 made an enquiry in the office of the learned Munsiff in that regard on 30th June' 08. But when no order whatsoever as regard his proposed Second Appeal before this Hon'ble Court could be seen the Petitioner rushed to Guwahati on 2nd July' 08 and went to the lodge where counsel Mr. A.K. Bhattacharjee used to reside. But from there the Petitioner gathered the information that Bhattacharjee was no more and he had left the lodge more than a year ago. The Petitioner collected the address of Mr. Bhattacharjee with great difficulty and proceeded to Tinsukia to collect the brief from the last residence of Mr. Bhattacharjee at Tinsukia where he had subsequently passed away in December, 2006. 15. That the Petitioner immediately after collecting the brief met Mr. A.R. Banerjee on 6.7.08 and narrated everything about their plight who immediately instructed his junior Smti. B. Choudhury to prepare and file the Appeal without further delay. The said junior accordingly prepared the Second Appeal and filed the same on 14th July' 08, the day on which this Hon'ble Court re-opened after summer holidays. 4. In fact, what the applicants have submitted is that applicant No. 1 had been working at Tezpur, with Vartak, which falls under Boarder Roads Organisation, and that his two brothers are mere cultivators and his sisters being unmarried, are fully dependent on him and they all had entrusted the applicant No. 1 to conduct the case. The applicant No. 1 claims that though he appeal, filed by he defendants-applicants, had been dismissed on 07.09.2004, he applicant came to know about the dismissal of the appeal only after more than a month of the dismissal of the appeal and, when he and his brothers and sisters decided to prefer a Second Appeal in the High Court against the order of dismissal, they applied for certified copy of the order, on 18.10.2004, and, on receiving the copy of the order, the Appellants decided to send the Appellant-applicant No. 1 to Guwahati to meet, in this regard their counsel, but the Appellant-applicant No. 1 fell seriously ill, because of dyspepsia, loss of appetite, and was diagnosed to have been suffering from infective hepatitis. Because of severity of his ailment, the applicant No. 1 was advised to take rest till his recovery. Because of severity of his ailment, the applicant No. 1 was advised to take rest till his recovery. The Appellant-applicant No. 1 had no alternative, but to wait till March 2005 (i.e., till his recovery), when he became capable to undertake bus journey from his village to Guwahati. 5. What is also important to note is that according to the Appellants-applicants, they had been suffering from severe financial constraint since pendency, and also after dismissal, of their appeal and, yet, on a number of occasions, when they were able to manage, by taking loan from friends, the minimum expenses required for the Appellant No. 1 to undertake journey to Guwahati to meet their counsel, whom the Appellant-applicant intended to engage, their counsel was found to be out of Guwahati and, thus, the applicant No. 1's several attempts to meet their counsel proved futile. It also transpires from the explanation for the delay, offered by the applicants, that their counsel suffered from illness and had to remain under medical treatment for long. However, after several attempts, the Appellant-applicant No. 1 was, eventually, able to meet his counsel on 26.04.2005 and had discussions with his counsel regarding preferring of second appeal. The counsel, after scrutiny of the papers, which had been handed over to him by the Appellant-applicant No. 1, informed the Appellant-applicant No. 1 that several other papers would be required for the purpose of filing the second appeal and, when the Appellant-applicant No. 1 contacted his counsel, at Tezpur, the brief, in respect of suit and the appeal, could not be traced out. However, in the last part of June, 2005, the Junior Counsel, who had been entrusted to conduct their case at the trial Court as well as the appellate Court, informed the Appellant-applicant No. 1 that the brief had been found out. The Appellant No. 1, then, collected the papers and rushed to Guwahati in the first week of July, 2005. However, the Appellant-applicant was proved to be unfortunate this time too, for, only after reaching Guwahati, he came to know that the High Court was closed due to summer vacation and that his counsel had left for Kolkata for medical treatment. The Appellant No. 1, then, collected the papers and rushed to Guwahati in the first week of July, 2005. However, the Appellant-applicant was proved to be unfortunate this time too, for, only after reaching Guwahati, he came to know that the High Court was closed due to summer vacation and that his counsel had left for Kolkata for medical treatment. However, his counsel had to prolong his stay at Kolkata and could return to Guwahati only in the month of October, 2005, and informed the applicant No. 1 that the second appeal would be made ready and filed immediately after re-opening of the Court after the Puja holidays. The Appellant No. 1 was also informed by their counsel that Dr. A.K. Bhattacharjee, Advocate, who was working as a junior of their counsel, would be appearing in the applicants' case, and the applicants' appeal would be filed through the said junior counsel. The applicant No. 1, then, handed over the entire brief accordingly to the said junior counsel. Thereafter, when the applicant came to Guwahati in January, 2006, to enquire about his case, he came to know that their counsel was away at Kolkata for performance of his mother Shraddha ceremony, lie, then, tried to meet Dr. Bhattacharjee, the junior counsel, in the Court premises but the junior counsel was not available. Hence, the applicant No. 1 returned back home under the impression that the appeal must have been filed and necessary orders must have been obtained already inasmuch as no development, after the passing of the appellate order, had taken place. However, in the month of October, 2006, the Appellant No. 1 came to know that their counsel (Senior) had undergone a bye-pass surgery in Delhi, in the first week of October, 2006, and was in complete bed rest and, on the other hand, the Appellant No. 1 could not meet the junior counsel as the lodge, wherein the junior counsel had been living, was found to be locked. It is the case of the Appellant that their Senior Counsel had to remain in Delhi, for medical treatment, since August 2007 till November, 2007. It is the case of the Appellant that their Senior Counsel had to remain in Delhi, for medical treatment, since August 2007 till November, 2007. The Appellants have further contended that Appellant No. 1 fell ill again, in the month of January 2008, and he was diagnosed to have been suffering from Malaria with jaundice and, consequently, the Appellant No. 1 had to remain under medical care for more than two months. Thereafter, when the Appellant No. 1 came to Guwahati, on 02.07.2008, he discovered that Mr. Bhattacharjee, junior counsel, had left Guwahati more than a year ago. The Appellant No. 1, then, collected the address of Mr. Bhattacharjee and proceeded to Tinsukia to collect the brief from the residence of Mr. Bhattacharjee, at Tinsukia. After so collecting the brief from the residence of Mr. Bhattacharjee, at Tinsukia, the Appellant No. 1, then, contacted his counsel, at Guwahati, on 06.07.2008, and, thereafter, this Second Appeal was, eventually, filed on 14.07.2008. 6. While considering the reasons, assigned by the applicants, seeking condonation of delay, it needs to be pointed out that there 'are two important questions, which have arisen at the time of considering this application, namely (i) whether the facts stated are untrue or false and (ii) whether the reasons assigned for the delay, if believed, rules out the possibility that the delay had been caused due to the latches and negligence of the applicants. In this regard, I may point out that unless the Court is in a position to reject an explanation for delay as untrue or wholly unbelievable, it would be harsh and unreasonable, on the part of the Court, to reject the explanation for condonation of delay only on the ground that the reasons, assigned for the delay, are hard to believe. Interest of justice demands, in such circumstances, that the application for condonation of delay be allowed. In other words, unless the Court is in a position to reject the application as untrue or unbelievable, it would not be appropriate, on the part of the Court, to reject the reasons, assigned for condonation of delay. In the present case, the delay is, undoubtedly, inordinate, but the circumstances, which led to the delay in preferring the second appeal, as have been succinctly set out in the application for condonation of delay, cannot be said to be wholly unbelievable and completely false. In the present case, the delay is, undoubtedly, inordinate, but the circumstances, which led to the delay in preferring the second appeal, as have been succinctly set out in the application for condonation of delay, cannot be said to be wholly unbelievable and completely false. If the grounds, assigned for the delay, are not rejected as unfounded or false, the consequence would be that this Court would not be in a position to confidently hold that the delay was caused due to the latches and negligence on the part of the applicants. 7. Appearing on behalf of the opposite party, Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned Counsel, has referred to the case of Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil reported in (2001) 9 SCC 106 , and contended that when the delay is inordinate, the reasons assigned for the delay have to be strictly construed. There can be no doubt that the delay, in the present case, is inordinate and the Court has to closely examine the causes and shall be cautious in accepting the causes, assigned, as true. In the case in hand, though, as indicated hereinabove, the delay is, undoubtedly, inordinate, the fact remains that the reasons, assigned by the applicants, cannot be said to be wholly untrue, false or unbelievable. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the applicants have been able to show that there were sufficient causes for not being able to file the second appeal within time. 8. While resisting the application for condonation of delay, Mr. Mazumdar has also pointed out that though averments have been made by the applicants, in this application, to the effect that both the sisters of the Appellant-applicant No. 1 are unmarried, the fact is that one of the sisters of the Appellant-applicant No. 1 is married. However, in view of the fact that according to the applications, the members of the family of the applicants had entrusted the Appellant-applicant No. 1 with the task of conducting the case and in view also of the fact that there is nothing on record to show that the other members of the applicant No. 1's family are literate person(s), this Court is of the view that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the reasons, assigned for seeking condonation of delay, cannot, if I may reiterate, be completely ruled out as wholly unbelievable or incorrect. 9. 9. In view of the above and in the interest of justice, the prayer for condonation of delay is hereby allowed. 10. Let the second appeal, which has been preferred by the Appellants, be registered and listed for admission. Application allowed