Judgment This appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 01.08.2008 passed by Additional District Judge, Raisingh Nagar, District Sri Ganganagar, whereby, the suit filed by the appellants for specific performance has been rejected by the trial court. The office has reported that the appeal is barred by 1916 days i.e. about 5¼ years. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 ('the Act') has been filed by the appellants, inter alia, with the following averments:- “2. That the appellants were told by their lawyer appearing before the trial court that they were required till their evidence is recorded and thereafter their presence was not regularly required. It was intimated to the appellants that they would be intimated as and when the presence would be required. The fact of the matter is that the appellants were thereafter not in contact with the advocate and due to this lack of communication they did not get intimation regarding passing of the impugned judgment and decree against them. It would be pertinent to submit here that the appellants are still in continuous possession of the land and during this intervening period, the defendants did not even try to take possession of the land or even intimate the appellants regarding passing of the impugned judgment and decree. It is only now that Gurdeo Singh (present respondent No.2) preferred an application before the concerned Tehsildar on 01.07.2013 and sought directions regarding handing over the possession of the land in question to him from the present appellants. Some of the appellants after coming to know about the same filed reply on 09.09.2013. Later on, the appellants got to know about the decision of the suit No.58/1994 as filed by late Shri Tahal Singh and at this point they were advised to seek remedy against the proceedings pending before the Tehsildar. Now when the appellants contacted an advocate at Sri Ganganagar in the month of January then they were advised to assai the impugned judgment and decree before this Hon'ble Court by preferring civil first appeal. The appellants procured the certified copy of the impugned judgment and decree on 22.01.2014 and thereafter they contacted their local lawyer at Sri Ganganagar again who contacted their present advocate at Jodhpur on telephone and briefed the case. The appellants procured the certified copy of the impugned judgment and decree on 22.01.2014 and thereafter they contacted their local lawyer at Sri Ganganagar again who contacted their present advocate at Jodhpur on telephone and briefed the case. The appellants also discussed and briefed the case to their present lawyer and on the evening of 25.1.2014 sent the file alongwith certified copies and Vakalatnama to the present lawyer for the purpose of filing a first appeal. Thereafter the advocate prepared the first appeal and filed the same on 28.1.2014 on the instructions of the appellants. Now, one of the appellants came to Jodhpur on 1.2.2014 and got the stay petition and application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act prepared and signed and sworn the same as well as the affidavits. 3. That the delay in filing the annexed civil first appeal is absolutely inadvertent one and is owning to the lack of communication with the lawyer appearing before the trial court resulting into lack of knowledge about passing of the impugned judgment and decree. The appellants are in possession even till date and the defendants never made any efforts either to take the possession or to intimate the appellants regarding the impugned judgment and decree in order to take possession. This fact itself shows the bona fides of the appellants and the fact regarding lack of knowledge about the passing of the impugned judgment and decree. The time consumed after getting to know about passing of the judgment and decree was for the reason that the appellants contacted an advocate at Sri Ganganagar and got the proper advice only from him and thereafter it took time for the appellants to arrange for the required expenses to file an appeal before this Hon'ble Court. Hence, the delay caused in filing this appeal is an inadvertent and boanfide one, which deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice.” Alongwith the application affidavit of one Satpal, who is appellant No.8 has been filed. Hence, the delay caused in filing this appeal is an inadvertent and boanfide one, which deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice.” Alongwith the application affidavit of one Satpal, who is appellant No.8 has been filed. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants-applicants that the delay in filing the appeal occurred on account of the counsel for the appellants, who represented them before the trial court, not intimating the appellants about the decision of the suit on 01.08.2008 and the appellants remained under the bonafide impression that as and when the suit would be decided, they would be informed by their counsel and, therefore, they did not make any contact with the Advocate. It was submitted that the appellants are in possession of the suit property and the respondents also did not take any step in pursuance to the judgment and decree dated 01.08.2008, which also contributed to their unawareness about the impugned judgment and decree. It was prayed that the delay in filing the appeal being boanfide deserves to be condoned. I have perused the application under Section 5 of the Act and the material placed on record. It would be noticed that the suit was filed by appellants' father Tahal Singh in the year 1994 and, on account of his death, the appellants were impleaded as party plaintiffs in the suit. The suit was decided by judgment and decree dated 01.08.2008 in the presence of appellants' counsel. The delay is being sought to be explained and condonation thereof is being sought on a stock plea, which, these days is being regularly taken that the appellants were told by their lawyer that they were required till their evidence was recorded and thereafter there presence was not regularly required and they would be intimated as and when the presence would be required and thereafter neither the appellants contacted the counsel nor the counsel intimated the dismissal/decision of the suit. The statement made in the application appears to be incorrect as statement of Tahal Singh himself was recorded as PW-1 and none of the appellants, legal representatives of Tahal Singh, appeared in the witness box and, therefore, to claim that the lawyer told the appellants that their presence was required 'till their evidence is recorded', appears to be wholly incorrect and false. The above aspect of laying the blame at the door step of the counsel was considered by this Court in Gauri Shankar v. Ram Sahay : 2013 (1) WLN 559, wherein it was, inter alia, observed as under:- “Again the blame is laid at the doorsteps of the counsel representing the appellant. In a case before the trial Court unlike the High Court where matters remain pending in 'due course', on every date when the matter is fixed, next date is always given by the said Court and, therefore, the conduct of the appellant in not contacting his lawyer from the period 13.07.2005 to 23.03.2007 and thereafter from 19.04.2010 till February, 2012 simply smacks of gross negligence on part of the appellant. It is not expected of a counsel to run after a client and keep him informed of the progress of the matter from day to day. This is not the case of the appellant that he approached the counsel any time between 19.04.2010 to February, 2012 when any wrong information was supplied to him. Therefore, if the appellant has chosen not to approach the counsel for inquiry about the progress of the case, it is his own sweet will and he cannot now turn around and rely on the said so called default on part of the Advocate for seeking condonation of delay.” The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Basawaraj & Anr. v. Special Land Acquicision Officer : 2013 DNJ (SC) 829 while dealing with a case where there was a delay of about five and a half years and the appeals were dismissed by the High Court on the ground of limitation, after scanning the entire law on the aspect summarized the same as under:- “15. The law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that where a case has been presented in the Court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the Court as to what was the “sufficient cause” which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the Court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No Court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condonation whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this Hon'ble Court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigation to approach the Court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature.” (emphasis supplied) It would be noticed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that in case a party is found to be negligent or found to have not acted diligently and remained inactive, there cannot be justified ground to condone the delay. In the present case, the averments contained in the application as noticed hereinbefore clearly reflects the negligence, lack of acting diligently and inactivity on part of the appellants in not contacting their lawyer for 5¼ years after passing of the judgment and apparently for a long time even before passing of the judgment. Further, there is not even a assertion in the application that the appellants contacted the trial court lawyer after coming to know of the decision and the lawyer has not filed any affidavit in support of the application. It is very convenient to make allegations against a counsel, as he is not before this Court to refute the same. The above aspects do not evoke any confidence in the assertions made in the application seeking condonation as noticed hereinbefore. Besides, as noticed hereinbefore the assertions appear to be incorrect/false. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the application seeking condonation of delay; the delay of 5¼ years in filing the appeal is not liable to be condoned; the application seeking condonation of delay is dismissed and, consequently, the appeal and the stay application are also dismissed.