ORDER : B. Veerappa, J. 1. The defendants filed the above writ petition against the order dated 12.02.2015 on I.A. No. III made in RA No. 54/2007 on the file of the II Addl. District Judge, Haveri, allowing the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, permitting respondent No. 2 to file cross-objection. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who are the plaintiffs, filed O.S. No. 119/2001 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Ranebennur, for partition and separate possession and after contest, the suit came to be decreed by the learned Civil Judge in part by a judgment and decree dated 04.10.2007. Against the said judgment and decree, the present petitioners, who are the defendants filed the appeal in RA No. 54/2007, challenging the judgment and decree of the trial court, on 22.11.2007. After receipt of notice in the appeal, the plaintiffs filed cross-objection on 28.02.2008 and there was a delay in filing the cross objection. Therefore, the plaintiffs/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay in filing the cross-objection. After recording the evidence on LA No. HI under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and after hearing both the parties, the appellate court, by the impugned order dated 12.02.2015 has allowed the said application and permitted the plaintiffs to file cross-objection. Against the said order, the present writ petition is filed. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. Sri. M.S. Haravi, learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants, has contended that the application for condonation of delay in filing the cross-objection is vague and no sufficient reasons are assigned. Therefore, the appellate court should not have condoned the delay. On that ground alone, the impugned order passed by the appellate court is liable to be quashed. He further contended that in the application for condonation of delay, there is no mention about the number of days delay in filing the cross-objection and the cause shown in the application is contrary to the evidence lead by the respondents and there is no specific cause shown by the respondents for condonation of delay. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed, etc. 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the entire material on record. 5. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed, etc. 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the entire material on record. 5. It is not in dispute that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is for partition and separate possession, and the suit is decreed in part by a judgment and decree dated 04.10.2007. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendants filed an appeal in RA No. 54/2007. After receipt of notice in RA No. 54/2007, the plaintiffs/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed cross-objection under Order XLI Rule 22 of CPC. As there is delay in filing the cross-objection, the plaintiffs filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the Cross- objection. The appellate court has recorded the evidence on the said application on both sides and recorded a finding that, after the service of notice in the appeal, within a week, she approached the advocate and the copy of the appeal memo was not legible and therefore, it was not possible to read it; As such, she has stated that it was difficult to read the appeal memo and further stated in the affidavit that she was having problem and she used to come from far away place; as such, there is delay in filing the cross-objection. 6. She has mentioned the same grounds in her affidavit, which was informed to her advocate and due to delivery in her house and due to ill-health, it was not possible to approach the Court within the limitation and the delay in filing the cross-objection was not intentional. Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve her evidence and if the application for condonation of delay is not allowed and permitted the plaintiffs to file the cross-objection against the adverse findings recorded by the trial court, she will be put to great hardship, etc. Based on the said finding of fact, the appellate court was pleased to allow IA No. III and condoned the delay in filing the cross-objection. Based on the said finding of fact, the appellate court was pleased to allow IA No. III and condoned the delay in filing the cross-objection. The appellate court has also recorded a finding at paragraph No. 5 of its order that there is a delay of 32 days in filing the cross-objection and after considering the objections and the evidence adduced by both parties, IA No. III for condonation of delay of 32 days is allowed, permitting the respondent No. 2/applicant to file cross-objection. The petitioners have not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order as to how it would be prejudicial to the case of the petitioners in the appeal and the appellate court has to decide the appeal and cross-objection on their merits independently. In view of the same, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the appellate court, under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.