Smti. Anima Hazarika, J.:- Heard Mr. A. Hai, learned counsel ap­pearing for the applicants. Also heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties. 2. The instant second appeal has been filed alongwith an application being Misc. Case No. 1272 of 2010 praying for condonation of delay of 56 days in preferring the second appeal. The ground of sufficient cause as ex­plained for extension of time beyond the prescribed period of limitation rests on two counts, viz., a) A talk of compromise was going on between the parties to settle the matter outside the Court, and b) The applicant No. 1, who is dealing with the case, is 69 years of age and suf­fering from cancer. 3. The appeal has been filed by 13 (thir­teen) appellants alongwith the Miscellaneous Case for condoning the delay. The Court is­sued notice on condonation petition on 05.05.2010 and on receipt of the notice, the opposite parties have entered appearance and raised an objection in regard to filing of ap­peal by thirteen applicants contending that the power appointing the counsel has been ex­ecuted by two applicants viz. applicant Nos. 1 and 5 on 26.08.2009. Later on another vakalatnama was placed on record wherein 11 applicants executed the vakalatnama on 19.02.2010. In the condonation petition filed on 26.08.2009 supported by an affidavit, a state­ment has been made by the applicant No. 5 that he has been authorized to swear the affi­davit by all the applicants, meaning thereby that the applicant No. 5 was not authorized to swear the affidavit on 26.08.2009 by the applicants save and except the applicant No.1. Thereafter, the opposite parties have filed their objection alleging that the second power executed on 19.02.2010 are the prod­uct of forgery by the applicant Nos. 1 and 5. 4. This Court on such objection being raised by the opposite parties, pased an or­der on 15.03.2011 which is quoted hereun-der "15.03.2011-In the case in hand a dispute has been raised relating to the genuineness of the signatures of the applicants other than the applicant Nos. 1 and 5. As affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the applicant No.5, Sri Mukul Sarma, stating that the signatures of those applicants are genuine. No affidavit, however, has been filed by those persons. In view of the above, the applicants, other than the applicant Nos. 1 and 5. As affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the applicant No.5, Sri Mukul Sarma, stating that the signatures of those applicants are genuine. No affidavit, however, has been filed by those persons. In view of the above, the applicants, other than the applicant Nos. 1 and 5 are directed to file their individual affidavit before this Court, as to whether they have filed the appeal, appli­cation seeking condonation of delay as well as the vakalatnama. Such affidavit shall be sworn before the Commissioner of affidavit in the High Court and filed within two weeks. List the case for orders on 30.03.2011." 5. However, the matter came up for con­sideration on 04.04.2011 before the Court wherein the counsel appearing for the appli­cant Nos. 3,7,8,9,11,12 and 13 have sub­mitted their respective affidavits, save and except the applicant Nos. 2, 6 and 10 and applicant No. 4 being on election duty prayed for some more time to file their respective affidavits. On the other hand, the counsel ap­pearing for the opposite parties has brought to the notice of the Court that the affidavits filed are not in consonance with the order passed on 15.03.2011 Moreover, another question has been raised relating to paragraph 1 of the miscellaneous application by the counsel representing the opposite parties, wherein it has been averred that the appli­cants are all cultivators by profession, whereas, it has been submitted before the Court that the affidavit by applicant No. 4 could not be filed, he being on election duty, meaning thereby that the applicant No. 4 is not a cultivator. This Court, therefore, further directed that the controversy raised is required to be clarified by the applicant No.4 annex­ing the proof of his profession along with the affidavit. 6. The record of the case, which was called for by this Court vide order dated 04.02.2011 would further reveal that the applicant Nos. 2 and 4 have not sworn the affidavit as ordered by the Court on 15.03.2011 whereof the affidavit has been filed through Notary in the Sub-Divisional Court. Further the other two applicant Nos. 6. The record of the case, which was called for by this Court vide order dated 04.02.2011 would further reveal that the applicant Nos. 2 and 4 have not sworn the affidavit as ordered by the Court on 15.03.2011 whereof the affidavit has been filed through Notary in the Sub-Divisional Court. Further the other two applicant Nos. 6 and 10 have not filed the affidavis as ordered, though an affidavit has been filed on their behalf by applicant No. 2 showing the ground of not filing the affidavit by them to the effect that the applicant No.6 is not available as he has gone to Jorhat and applicant No. 10 could not come due to short­age of time as she is living in Sonitpur. The record would further reveal that the applicant Nos. 6,7 and 11 have not contested the case before the first appellate Court being Title Appeal No. 33 of 2008 but have filed the Second Appeal which debarred them to chal­lenge the instant appeal and the miscellaneous application. 7. Another aspect this Court noticed that the condonation petition was filed on 26.08.2009 whereas the medical certificate in regard to illness of the applicant No.1 annexed with the petition is dated 25.02.2010 and there is no explanation as to how the medical certificate dated 25.02.2010 could be annexed in the petition filed on 26.08.09. Moreover, the second vakalatnama dated 19.02.2011 does not bear any token/regis­tration of the same by the office which is se­rious flaw on the part of the applicants as noticed by the Court. 8. The statements made in the affidavit of the condonation petition regarding avocation of the applicants to be cultivators is not cor­rect as disclosed in the affidavit-in-opposition, wherein it has been stated on oath that the applicant No.1 is now leading retired life, whereas the applicant No. 2 is a house wife. The applicant Nos. 3 and 4 are Lectur­ers of college at Guwahati and Barpeta re­spectively. The applicant No. 5 is unemployed, so also applicant No.6, whereas the applicant Nos. 7 to 12 are all housewives and the applicant No. 13 is employed in a nursing home. 9. From the facts narrated hereinabove and keeping in mind the fundamental rule of guidance for the exercise of discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is to see whether the applicants claiming the indulgence have been reasonably diligent in prosecuting the appeal. 9. From the facts narrated hereinabove and keeping in mind the fundamental rule of guidance for the exercise of discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is to see whether the applicants claiming the indulgence have been reasonably diligent in prosecuting the appeal. The application for condonation of delay must contain not only the cause which led to the delay in filing the appeal but also must contain all the relevant materials which would enable the Court to determine that the applicants, despite due diligence were pre­vented from filing the appeal within the pe­riod of limitation. 10. A reading of the affidavit filed by the applicants along with the affidavit-in-opposi-tion filed by the opposite parties would am­ply demonstrate that the averments made seeking extension of time beyond the pre­scribed period of limitation are incorrect, false and not bona fide, inasmuch as, while explain­ing delay in preferreing the appeal, one of the cause shown is talk of compromise going on between the parties, which the opposite par­ties have stoutly denied. Moreover, for filling the application regarding compromise, de­feated party has got ample opportunity to record a compromise in the second appela filed within satutory period without waiting for the wining party to give consent for compro­mise. Law does not permit condoning the delay on the ground of delay in waiting for consent of the wining party for effecting a compromise, that too, opposite parties have stoutly denied about any compromise talk going on between the parties. 11. Corning to the next ground, it has been stated that applicant No. 1 is suffering from cancer, who is taking steps in the case. On the other hand, the record would reveal that the applicant No. 1 as DW 1 in his deposi­tion categorically stated that he has authorized applicant No. 5 to look after the case as he has difficulties in coming to the Court. Moreover, except applicant No. 1, there are other co-applicants who could have taken steps for filling the appeal in time. Therefore, the grounds so taken for condonation of delay are not sustainable. 12. Barring the above two grounds, no other ground has been urged by the appli­cants in support of their contention made in the application. 13. Moreover, except applicant No. 1, there are other co-applicants who could have taken steps for filling the appeal in time. Therefore, the grounds so taken for condonation of delay are not sustainable. 12. Barring the above two grounds, no other ground has been urged by the appli­cants in support of their contention made in the application. 13. The above materials available on record would show that there is lack of due diligence on the part of the applicants in pre­senting the application in preferring the appeal and hence, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the case shown in the condonation petition are not sufficient cause so as to condone the delay of 56 days. The applica­tion is thus required to be rejected for want of due diligence on the part of the applicants in preferring the appeal within time and hence, the discretionary power bestowed on the Court under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not exercised. 14. Accordingly, this miscellaneous appli­cation for condonation of delay stands dismissed. 15. Send down the lower Court record forthwith.