ORDER 1. This application (I.A. No.4054/2015) has been filed by the appellants/defendants for condonation of delay in filing the first appeal against the ex parte decree dated 18.7.2007 passed by the XIVth Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Jabalpur. 2. Appeal is time barred by limitation for about 2709 days. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the appellant No.1 is a illiterate widow and appellant No.4 is the married daughter of the appellant No.1 who resides at Katni District. Appellants No.2 and 3 are in private jobs at Delhi. 4. It is further submitted that due to the carelessness of their counsel, they could not appear before the trial Court, hence, the trial Court passed the ex parte decree on 18.7.2007 against them. Thereafter, application under Order 9 rule 13 CPC has been filed by them, which was dismissed on 28.8.2009. 5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 28.8.2009 the appellants preferred miscellaneous appeal under Order 43 rule 1(r) CPC before this Court to set aside the judgment and decree dated 18.7.2007, which was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated 10.10.2013. The same was not communicated to them by their counsel. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that when the execution proceedings were initiated the appellants came to know about the dismissal of their appeal. It is also contended that the above delay is caused due to mistake of their counsel. Appellants are interested to prosecute the present appeal. The reasons for delay is beyond their control. Their mistake is bona fide. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that because of mistake on the part of advocate a litigant should not suffer. Hence, the appellants prayed to condone the delay. 7. In reply, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the prayer of the appellants. It is submitted that there is about 8 years delay in filing the appeal. Reasons shown in the application are not bona fide and the mistake or carelessness of the counsel for the party is not sufficient to condone the delay. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record. 9. After considering the contentions of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court finds that the reasons given by the appellants in the application for condonation of delay were vague. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record. 9. After considering the contentions of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court finds that the reasons given by the appellants in the application for condonation of delay were vague. Bare reading of the application shows that the appellants proceeded against the impugned order dated 18.7.2007. Under Order 9 rule 13 and under Order 43 rule 1 of the CPC. Those petitions were dismissed on 28.8.2009 and 10.10.2013, respectively. Then, against the order dated 18.7.2007 this first appeal has been filed on 24.3.3015. It shows that the appellants have filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act in a casual manner without disclosing any cogent reason for inordinate delay of 2709 days. Bare reading of the said application shows that the appellants failed and neglected to take appropriate steps to protect their interest within prescribed time. 10. In the case of Prakash v. Uma Chaturvedi [2016(1) MPLJ], it is held as under :- “While considering application under section 5, Court is bound to adopt a lenient view keeping in view stake of litigation but it does not mean that by adopting a lenient view, valuable right, which has already been accrued in favour of other party on expiry of period of limitation prescribed, could be interfered by Court in absence of proof of sufficient cause.” 11. The undue delay caused by the appellants due to the mistake or negligent of their counsel to file this appeal has not been found sufficient and satisfactory and does not seems to be bona fide. The undue delay caused by the appellants due to the mistake or negligent of their counsel to file this appeal has not been found sufficient and satisfactory and does not seems to be bona fide. It is to be noted that, the apex Court, in the matter of “Lanka Venkateshwarlu v. State of A.P. [2011(4) MhLJ 104]” held that :- “The Courts do not enjoy unlimited and unbridled discretionary powers in condonation of delay.” Similarly, the apex Court in the matter of “Maniben Devraj Shah v. MMC, [ (2012)5 SCC 157 ]” held that :- “No premium can be given for total lethargy or utter negligence of the litigant in condonation of delay.” In similar way, the apex Court in the the matter of “B. Madhuri Goud v. B. Damodar Reddy [(2012)12 SCC 693]” held that :- “If sufficient cause is not shown, delay should not be condoned.” In that case, the apex Court held that the delay of 1236 days in filing the appeal against an ex parte order cannot be condoned for want of sufficient cause. 12. In the case of Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archana Kumar and another [ AIR 2005 SC 626 ], it is held as under :- “Ex parte decree – Remedies available against – Defendant can file appeal or can file application under Order 9, rule 13 to set aside ex parte decree – Once application under Order 9, rule 13 is dismissed – He cannot by filing first appeal dispute correctness of order posting suit for ex parte hearing or show cause for his non-appearance.” 13. On the above discussion and the principles laid down by the apex Court as stated herein above, I.A. No.4054/2015 for condoning the delay is hereby dismissed. Consequently, present appeal is also dismissed being time barred.