JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. This petition is instituted against the order dated 01.09.2016, rendered by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Roorkee, Haridwar in Misc. Case No. 09 of 2016. 2. “Key facts”, necessary for adjudication of the present petition are that respondent no. 2 filed a civil suit bearing no. 117 of 2008, which was dismissed by the trial court on 30.01.2014. Thereafter, respondent no. 2 filed an appeal before the appellate court. The appellate court allowed the appeal on 28.02.2015. Respondent no. 2 filed an execution petition bearing no. 09 of 2015 for executing the decree passed in his favour and a show cause notice was given to the petitioners. The petitioners appeared in the matter and filed their objections and were arrayed as defendants. 3. Defendants have put in their appearance on 26.11.2015 and filed their objections on 24.02.2016. Thereafter, they have filed an application under Order 41 Rule 21 of CPC along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The application was dismissed by the appellate court on 01.09.2016. Hence, the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the first appellate court has taken a hyper-technical view. The delay ought to have been condoned. 5. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 Mr. Navneet Kaushisk has supported the order dated 01.09.2016. 6. According to the petitioners, they were not provided proper legal advice. However, the fact of the matter is that the petitioners knew about the decree dated 28.02.2015. They have put in their appearance on 26.11.2015 and have filed their objections on 24.02.2016. It would be relevant to mention at this stage that the objections in execution petition have been filed by Sri Sunil Kumar Thapliyal and the application under Order 41 Rule 21 of CPC has also been filed by the same counsel. 7. It is settled law that delay can be condoned if it is of a shorter duration, but when the delay is inordinate, the same has to be explained. Sufficient reasons have to be assigned. The other party acquire the legal/vested rights with the passage of time. The settled position cannot be unsettled, when there is no valid explanation for condonation of delay. 8. The impugned order is well reasoned order. There is neither illegality nor any perversity in the same. 9. Sufficient reasons have to be assigned. The other party acquire the legal/vested rights with the passage of time. The settled position cannot be unsettled, when there is no valid explanation for condonation of delay. 8. The impugned order is well reasoned order. There is neither illegality nor any perversity in the same. 9. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed.