JUDGMENT : P.G.M. Patil, J. The defendants-1A to 1C being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 06.01.2017 passed in R.A.No.125/2013 by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi confirming the judgment and decree dated 25.02.2012 in O.S.No.28/2007 passed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Belagavi have filed this Regular Second Appeal. 2. The parties are referred to their ranks before the trial Court. 3. Respondent herein filed O.S. No.28/2007 against the original defendant Sri. Shivalingappa seeking a decree for specific performance of agreement of sale in respect of suit schedule property. 4. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant intended to alienate the suit property for his financial needs and clear the liability of loan transaction. The plaintiff approached the defendant and offered highest price of Rs.15,00,000/- as consideration and the defendant accepted the said offer and agreed to sell the suit property in his favour. Accordingly on 24.11.2001, the defendant executed the agreement of sale by receiving advance sale consideration of Rs.4,33,000/- after execution of the agreement. The defendant had also executed a power of attorney to develop and for execution of sale deed and on the strength of the same, the plaintiff submits that he had invested the amount and constructed the basement. Thereafter the defendant denied the execution of the sale deed. Subsequently, the defendant agreed to receive balance of Rs.10,50,000/- and he received a cheque for Rs.14,50,000/- on 17.09.2004. Even after the receipt of the said cheque, defendant refused to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff by that time had transferred the said property to one Shri. Anup Karalatti on the strength of power of attorney. 5. Thereafter defendant filed criminal complaint in C.C.No.1007/2005 before the III JMFC, Belgaum against the plaintiff for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1889 and the said proceedings came to be withdrawn by the defendant admitting that he has no claim over the said properties and has received entire consideration amount with interest at 12% p.a. from 2001 to 2004 i.e. Rs.18,83,000/-. Therefore there is no balance to be paid to the defendant. The plaintiff was ever ready and willing to perform his part of contract. Therefore there is no balance to be paid to the defendant. The plaintiff was ever ready and willing to perform his part of contract. The plaintiff has further stated that the defendant had given false public notice in the daily newspaper "Kannadamma" dated 31.12.2006 and therefore the plaintiff was constrained to file this suit for specific performance of contract with respect to the suit property. 6. After service of summons, the defendant appeared through his counsel but failed to file written statement. Subsequently, it was reported that the original defendant died and his LRs came on record and they also failed to file any written statement before the trial Court. The plaintiff in support of his case examined himself as PW1 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to P8. The trial Court after hearing the plaintiff posted the matter for judgment on 23.02.2012. However, it is stated that the defendant filed an application on 18.02.2012 seeking permission to file written statement, which was rejected by the trial Court. Consequently, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff by judgment dated 25.02.2012. 7. The defendants-1A to 1C being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree filed regular appeal No.125/2013 on the file of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi along with I.A.No.1/2019 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay of 425 days in filing the said appeal. 8. The appellants adduced the evidence on I.A.No.1/2019 before the appellate Court. The appellate Court after hearing both the learned counsels appearing for the parties dismissed the I.A. filed by the appellants under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 by impugned order dated 06.01.2017. Consequently regular appeal was also dismissed. 9. Defendants-1A to 1C being aggrieved by the said judgment have filed this regular second appeal. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and respondent on admission. 11. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that it is just necessary to give an opportunity to the appellants to file their written statement and also contest the suit and therefore the appeal be admitted and it is the case for retrial of the suit. 12. Learned counsel further submitted that the first appellate Court ought to have allowed the application for condonation of delay and heard the appeal on merits. 13. 12. Learned counsel further submitted that the first appellate Court ought to have allowed the application for condonation of delay and heard the appeal on merits. 13. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent submits that the first appellate Court has considered the material produced on I.A. and has properly dismissed the application and consequently the appeal. 14. Learned counsel further submitted that there are no bona fide reasons in filing I.A. and also the present appeal which is observed by the first appellate Court. 15. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the entire consideration amount was received by the defendants and nothing is due to the defendants towards the sale consideration and that the appellants filed the Appeal before the first appellate Court and this Court, at the instigation of one Channappa Amashi, as observed by the first appellate Court. 16. The appellants herein have not utilized the opportunity given by the trial Court, though they have appeared before the trial Court through their counsel. 17. When the present appellants filed R.A.No.125/2013, there was delay of 425 days in filing the said appeal. In order to satisfy the Court about the sufficient cause, one of the appellant's was examined as PW1 before the first appellate Court. The first appellate Court has recorded the evidence given by PW1. In the cross examination admissions given by the witnesses goes to show that the appellants herein had no impediments to obtain certified copy of the judgment immediately after the pronouncement of the judgment. PW1 has also further admitted that they did not appear in the suit after the receipt of the LRs notice as the sale transaction was completed by receiving the entire sale consideration in respect of the suit property, PW1 has also admitted that the appeal was filed at the instigation of one Channappa Amashi. Under these circumstances, this Court holds that the appellants have not made out any substantial question of law which arise for consideration in the present appeal. Therefore, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.