ORDER : 1. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 31.03.2018 passed in R.A. No. 245/2016 on the file of the I Additional District and Session Judge at Mysore. 2. The respondent herein who is the plaintiff before the Trial Court i.e. III Addl. First Civil Judge at Mysore had filed the suit for mandatory injunction seeking demolition of the plaint schedule property (staircase marked as ‘DFGH’ in the sketch) appended to the pliant alleged to be unauthorizedly constructed by the petitioners along with the relief of permanent injunction against the petitioners from interfering with the peaceful possession of the respondent. The Trial Court decreed the suit in part by allowing the relief of permanent injunction by restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff’s free movement in the passage as stated in the schedule to the plaint. The respondent preferred a Regular Appeal against the said judgment and decree in R.A. No. 126/2014 and the same was re-numbered as R.A. No. 245/2016 with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 510 days in filing the appeal. The Appellate Court allowed the I.A. No. 1 condoning the delay of 510 days in filing the appeal. Hence, these writ petitions. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the First Appellate Court after holding an enquiry on the I.A. No. 1 filed by the respondent and discarding the evidence of the respondent for not tendering herself for cross-examination despite adequate opportunity provided and again relying on the affidavit of the respondent to condone the delay of 510 days is unjustifiable and deserves to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the First Appellate Court was right in condoning the delay of 510 days considering the satisfactory explanation offered by the respondent. Hence, the same requires to be confirmed. 5. Having considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, it is discernable that no satisfactory explanation being offered by the respondent to condone the inordinate delay of 510 days in filing the appeal, it was decided to hold an enquiry on the said I.A. No. 1. It is not in dispute that the evidence of PW-1 was discarded for the reason that PW-1 respondent has not tendered for cross- examination despite several opportunities provided. It is not in dispute that the evidence of PW-1 was discarded for the reason that PW-1 respondent has not tendered for cross- examination despite several opportunities provided. If that be the position, relying on the evidence of the respondent to condone the delay of 510 days cannot be countenanced, more particularly, where the affidavit is vague and not supported by any substantial material. It is based on the age of the respondent and her husband, the First Appellate Court has arrived at a decision that the delay requires to be condoned as an exceptional case despite no satisfactory explanation offered. The said reason of the Trial Court is not acceptable in the scenario where the petitioners are equally aged/senior citizens who are put to harassment by the lackadaisical attitude of the respondent in not being serious in prosecuting the case. In such circumstances, the order impugned cannot be sustained. 6. However, considering the totality of circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that justice would be sub-served in setting aside the order impugned and remitting the matter to the Lower Appellate Court to reconsider the application (I.A. No. 1) afresh and conduct an enquiry in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. 7. It is made clear that the respondent shall cooperate for the expedite disposal of I.A. No. 1. The Lower Appellate Court shall hold an enquiry afresh and take a decision in accordance with law in an expedite manner, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. 8. With the aforegoing observations and directions, writ petitions stand disposed of.