JUDGMENT Alok Singh, J. 1. Present petition is filed assailing the judgment & order dated 26.09.2013 passed by Commissioner, Kumaon Division as well as order dated 10.05.2013 passed by Assistant Collector, First Class, Bhawar, Haldwani, Nainital rejecting the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in moving restoration application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside ex parte judgment and decree dated 08.04.2010. 2. Brief facts of the present case inter alia are that plaintiff/respondents no. 3 and 4, herein, filed revenue suit no. 22/165 of 2002 in the court of Assistant Collector, First Class, Bhawar, Haldwani against Ganga Devi, (mother of petitioners & respondent no. 5, herein) as well as against the State Government and Gram Sabha, Bacchi Nagar, seeking declaration to the effect that plaintiff /respondents no. 3 and 4, herein, be declared as Bhoomidhar with transferable rights of the property, in question, in view of the fact that plaintiffs have matured their title by way of adverse possession against Smt. Ganga Devi – original defendant no. 3. During the pendency of suit, Smt. Ganga Devi expired, consequently, petitioners as well as respondent no. 5, herein, were substituted as legal heirs of Smt. Ganga Devi as defendants no. 3/1, 3/2 and 3/3 vide order dated 09.04.2003. Substituted LRs of Ganga Devi – original defendant no. 3 i.e. petitioners as well as respondent no. 5 filed their additional written statement. Substituted LRs of Ganga Devi – original defendant no. 3 i.e. petitioners and respondent no. 5 initially contested the suit, however, after some time they remained absent, consequently, vide order dated 07.11.2008 suit was directed to be proceeded ex parte and suit was ultimately decreed ex parte against the LRs of Ganga Devi – original defendant no. 3 vide judgment and order dated 08.04.2010. 3. On 15.02.2012, an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the order dated 08.04.2010 was moved before the trial court along with application seeking condonation of delay in moving the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. 4. Vide impugned order dated 10.05.2013, learned trial court was pleased to dismiss the application seeking condonation of delay in moving the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and consequently, application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC also came to be dismissed. 5. 4. Vide impugned order dated 10.05.2013, learned trial court was pleased to dismiss the application seeking condonation of delay in moving the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and consequently, application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC also came to be dismissed. 5. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners preferred appeal before the Commissioner, Kumaon Division, which also came to be dismissed vide judgment and order dated 26.09.2013. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners have approached this Court by invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. I have heard Mr. Sharad Sharma, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. N.K. Papnoi, Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. R.C. Arya, standing counsel for State of Uttarakhand and Mr. Narendra Bali, Advocate for respondents no. 3 and 4 and have carefully perused the record. 7. Mr. Sharad Sharma, learned senior counsel for the petitioners while referring to the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gurudwara Sahib vs. Gram Panchayat, 2013 (2) U.D. 381 submitted that suit for declaration on the ground of adverse possession is not maintainable, therefore, ex parte judgment and decree is without jurisdiction. 8. Undisputedly, Ganga Devi – original defendant no. 3 also filed suit for possession against respondents no. 3 and 4, herein. Respondent no. 3 and 4, herein, filed present suit under Section 229B of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act against Gram Sabha and Ganga Devi for declaration, declaring them Bhoomidhar with transferable rights of the property, in question, on account of maturity of title by way of adverse possession against Ganga Devi – original defendant no. 3. 9. Sections 209 and 210 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act read as under: "209. Ejectment of persons occupying land without title (1) A person taking or retaining possession of land otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the law for the time being in force:- (a) Where the land forms part of the holding of a bhumidhar or asami without the consent of such bhumidhar or asami. (b) Where the land does not form part of the holding of a bhumidhar or asami without the consent of the Gaon Sabha, shall be liable to ejectment on the suit, in cases referred to in clause (a) above, of the bhumidhar or asami, concerned, and in cases referred to in clause (b) above, of the Gaon Sabha and shall also be liable to pay damages. (2) To every suit relating to a land referred to in clause (a) of Sub-section (1) the State Government shall be impleaded as a necessary party. 210. Consequences of failure to file suit under Section 209: If a suit for eviction from any land under Section 209 is not instituted by a bhumdihar or asami, or a decree for eviction obtained in any such suit is not executed within the period of limitation provided for institution of such suit or the execution of such decree, as the case may be, the person taking or retaining possession shall:- (a) Where the land forms part of the holding of a bhumidhar with transferable rights, become a bhumidhar with a transferable rights of such land and the right, title and interest of an asami, if any, in such land shall be extinguished. (b) Where the land forms part of the holding of a bhumidhar with non transferable rights, become a bhoomidhar with non transferable rights and right, title and interest of an asami, if any, in such land shall be extinguished. (c) Where the land forms part of the holdig of an asami on behalf of the Gaon Sabha, become an asami of the holding from year to year. Provided that the consequences, mentioned in clauses (a) to (c) shall not ensue in respect of any land held by a bhumidhar or asami belonging to a Scheduled Tribe.” 10. As per Section 209 of the Act, a Bhoomidhar with transferable rights can file suit for possession against the encroacher/unauthorized occupant. As per Section 210 of the Act, if suit under Section 209 of the Act is not filed within the limitation prescribed or decree thereof is not executed within the limitation prescribed or if suit is dismissed, person in possession of property, in question, shall acquire Bhoomidhari rights and rights of original Bhoomidhar shall stand extinguished in favour of person, in possession. 11. As per Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, limitation prescribed to file suit for possession of immovable property or any interest therein based on title, is 12 years. 12. On being asked repeatedly, Mr. Sharad Sharma, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, could not point out, as to whether any application for setting aside the dismissal order dated 29.07.2009 and for restoration of suit filed under Section 209 along with delay condonation application was ever moved. 12. On being asked repeatedly, Mr. Sharad Sharma, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, could not point out, as to whether any application for setting aside the dismissal order dated 29.07.2009 and for restoration of suit filed under Section 209 along with delay condonation application was ever moved. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, contends that if present suit is restored, petitioners can still move an application for restoration of the suit filed under Section 209 of the Act. 13. Undisputedly, suit filed by Ganga Devi, mother of petitioners and respondent no. 5, under Section 209 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, came to be dismissed for non prosecution on 29.07.2009, as held by the Appellate Authority. Therefore, it shall be presumed that respondents no. 3 and 4, herein/plaintiff have matured bhoomidhari rights by way of adverse possession, as provided under section 210 of the Act. 14. In my considered opinion, judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gurudwara Sahib (supra) is distinguishable in view of Section 210 of the Act. 15. At this stage, Mr. Sharad Sharma, learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that he does not want to press the present petition for Relief ‘A’ consequently, petition is dismissed for amended Relief ‘A’ as not pressed. 16. Let me now examine as to whether application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in moving application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside ex parte judgment dated 08.04.2010 was rightly rejected by both the courts below? 17. As per Article 123 of the Limitation Act, an application for setting aside the ex parte judgment/decree can be moved within 30 days form the date of decree or where summons or notice was not duly served, from the date applicant has acquired knowledge of the decree. 18. In the present case, after death of Ganga Devi – original defendant no. 3, petitioners as well as respondent no. 5 were substituted as LRs of Ganga Devi – original defendant no. 3, thereafter, all of them submitted their additional written statement before the trial court, therefore, petitioners had absolute knowledge about the pendency of the suit. 19. 18. In the present case, after death of Ganga Devi – original defendant no. 3, petitioners as well as respondent no. 5 were substituted as LRs of Ganga Devi – original defendant no. 3, thereafter, all of them submitted their additional written statement before the trial court, therefore, petitioners had absolute knowledge about the pendency of the suit. 19. Now, question comes as to whether sufficient cause is shown for remaining absent from the trial court on the date, when suit was directed to be proceeded ex parte or in any case, on the date, when suit was decreed ex parte against the petitioners as well as respondent no. 5 - legal heirs of Ganga Devi – original defendant no. 3. 20. As observed hereinbefore, suit was directed to be proceeded ex parte against LRs of Ganga Devi – original defendant no. 3 vide order dated 07.11.2008 and ultimately, suit was ex parte decreed vide judgment dated 08.04.2010. 21. Perusal of the application moved under Section 5 of the Limitation Act would reveal that the ground taken in the application is that petitioner no. 2 was doing pairvi on behalf of petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 5; petitioner no. 2 could acquire knowledge about ex parte judgment dated 08.04.2010 only when father of the petitioners as well as respondent no. 5 acquired knowledge on 17.11.2011 that respondent no. 3 and 4 were adamant to transfer the property belonging to Ganga Devi. In the application moved under Rule 9 Order 13 CPC the ground taken by the petitioners is that petitioner no. 2 was doing pairvi on behalf of LRs of Ganga Devi – original defendant no. 3 and he was residing at Jagdamba Nagar, Haldwani and he used to visit his village occasionally and he gained knowledge about the dismissal of suit, when his father came to know about ex parte judgment and decree on 17.11.2011. 22. Undisputedly, father of the petitioners was not doing pairvi in the suit on behalf of the petitioners nor he was having any power of attorney of the petitioners, therefore, father of the petitioners had absolutely no occasion to find out about the outcome of the suit. 23. 22. Undisputedly, father of the petitioners was not doing pairvi in the suit on behalf of the petitioners nor he was having any power of attorney of the petitioners, therefore, father of the petitioners had absolutely no occasion to find out about the outcome of the suit. 23. Moreover, in view of the fact that petitioners as well as respondent 5 have filed their additional written statement before the trial court and were having absolute knowledge about the pendency of the suit, therefore, they were themselves duty bound to keep watch on the proceedings of the suit. 24. I do not find any whisper in both the applications as to why petitioners as well as respondent no. 5 remained absent before the trial court on so many dates fixed and no reason has been given, as to why petitioners and respondent no. 5 /defendants remained absent before the trial court on 08.04.2010 when ex parte judgment was passed. 25. All the allegations made in the applications seem to be totally vague, ambiguous and non satisfactory. This Court is conscious about the fact that while dealing with the application seeking condonation of delay, this Court should not adopt hyper technical view and some leniency should be shown in favour of the applicants in order to do the complete justice. However, this Court should not forget that applicants seeking condonation of delay are duty bound to furnish satisfactory explanation for remaining absent before the trial court on the date fixed. If reasons are not satisfactory, delay should not be condoned. 26. In view of the fact that no satisfactory reason has come forward, therefore, I am not inclined to interfere in both the impugned orders passed by the courts below. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 27. CLMA No. 12176 of 2013 also stands disposed of.