JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is reported barred by 2664 days. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed by the appellants-applicants seeking condonation of delay, inter alia, on the ground that the impugned judgment was passed on 12.11.2001, however, as the appellants were minor and were not aware of the pendency of the suit, they have no occasion to know about the pending proceedings and the delivery of judgment. It is thereafter claimed that it was only on 25.1.2009 when the appellants' relative informed them about the fact of filing of the suit by their mother that they came to know about filing of the suit and after tracing the counsel, who in-turn traced the file and after applying certified copies of the judgment, the present appeal has been filed. 2. It is also claimed that qua the appellants No.3 & 5 as the appeal has been filed within three years from the date of their attaining the majority, the appeal is within limitation qua the appellants No.3 and 5 and therefore, the delay deserves to be condoned. 3. During the pendency of the appeal, the notices were ordered to be issued by this Court on 6.4.2009, on 3.12.2012, it was ordered that if the requisites were not filed during the course of the day, the appeal shall stand dismissed qua the un-served respondents without reference to the Court. However, PF and notices were not filed and consequently, the appeal stood dismissed qua the respondents No.2 & 3. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants-applicants submit that the mother of the appellants, who was one of the plaintiffs had died during the pendency of the suit and at the time of filing of the suit, the appellants were minor and were not aware about the pendency of the suit and as soon as they became aware of filing of the suit and its decision, the appeal has been filed without any further loss of time, as such, the delay deserves to be condoned. 5. The application is opposed by learned counsel for the respondent No.1, though no reply to the application has been filed. It is, inter-alia, submitted that no case has been made out seeking condonation of delay and the application deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have considered the rival submissions. 7. 5. The application is opposed by learned counsel for the respondent No.1, though no reply to the application has been filed. It is, inter-alia, submitted that no case has been made out seeking condonation of delay and the application deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have considered the rival submissions. 7. The suit was filed by the appellants-applicants seeking permanent injunction against the respondents in the nature that the land alleged to be trespassed by the respondents, be got vacated and possession be handed over to them and thereafter, the defendants be restrained from interfering with their possession. The suit came to be dismissed by the trial court for lack of evidence. The nature of litigation indicates that the appellants-plaintiffs are out of possession since year 1998 i.e. from the time of filing of the suit and a simple suit for injunction was filed, which otherwise appears to be not maintainable. During the pendency of the present appeal, the appeal came to be dismissed qua the respondents No.2 & 3 by order dated 15.12.2012 and the nature of litigation is not such that even if the appellants were to succeed, separate decrees can be passed qua the respondent No.1 and / or respondents No. 2 & 3. 8. Besides the above, the claim of the appellants about filing of the appeal within three years after attaining the majority, the appeal within limitation is baseless and has no legal sanction. 9. In view of the above, no case is made out for condonation of delay and as such, the application as well as appeal are dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******