ORDER C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J. 1. ASMP. No. 2426 of 2011 is filed for condonation of delay of 3406 days in filing ASSR No. 12346 of 2011.In his affidavit, the applicant, who filed OS. No. 46 of 1998 for declaration that he is the exclusive owner of the suit schedule property, stated that the said suit was dismissed on 19-01-2002; that initially he has obtained certified copy of the judgment for the purpose of filing appeal; that after disposal of the suit, the elders in the family and well wishers advised the applicant to compromise with the respondents as they are his brothers; that on their advise, the respondents have agreed to settle the dispute amicably by vacating the suit schedule property on receiving a sum of Rs. 30,000/- from the applicant; and that as the respondents went back on their promise and the applicant's daughter, who left him to live with respondent No. 1, has come back to him, he is constrained to file the appeal against the judgment and decree belatedly. 2. On behalf of the respondents, respondent No. 1 filed a counter-affidavit wherein he has denied holding of panchayats for amicable settlement of the dispute. Respondent No. 1 also averred that no panchayat was ever held nor the applicant's daughter has ever lived with him. He has also denied the allegation that they have agreed to settle the dispute by receiving Rs. 30,000/- 3. No iota of evidence is placed by the applicant in support of his explanation for condonation of delay. The averments are bereft of details as to the names of the elders, who mediated for settlement of the dispute, and the approximate time, if not the precise time, during which the mediations/negotiations were held. The applicant has also not stated as to when he has obtained certified copy of the judgment in OS. No. 46 of 1998, in the first instance, which was allegedly misplaced. 4. The law is well settled that a litigant, who is not diligent in pursuing his cause, does not deserve indulgence of the Courts. Failure of the applicant to file appeal within reasonable time might have created legitimate expectation in the respondents that the judgment and decree have become final. Having waited for nine long years, the applicant cannot approach this Court at his leisure by offering delightfully vague and unsubstantiated explanation. Failure of the applicant to file appeal within reasonable time might have created legitimate expectation in the respondents that the judgment and decree have become final. Having waited for nine long years, the applicant cannot approach this Court at his leisure by offering delightfully vague and unsubstantiated explanation. Even assuming that there were attempts to mediate, the applicant is not expected to make an endless wait for years for the mediations to fructify. In the face of the stout denial of the respondents that no such mediations have ever taken place, the burden lay heavily on the applicant to prove the said averments. The applicant has miserably failed in discharging the burden heavily rested on him to show that genuine reasons prevented him from filing the appeal within a reasonable time. 5. For the above-mentioned reasons, this Court is not inclined to condone the expansive delay of 3406 days in filing the appeal without there being any semblance of justification therefor offered by the applicant. 6. For the above mentioned reasons, ASMP. No. 2426 of 2011 is dismissed. As a sequel, ASSR No. 12346 of 2011 is dismissed.