JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal has been preferred against Judgement dated 15.01.2014 and Decree signed on 24.01.2014 and corrected on 26.07.2014, passed in Title Appeal No. 12/2005, passed by Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi-XIII, whereby and whereunder Judgment dated 30.11.2009, passed by Additional Munsif-III, Ranchi in Eviction Title Suit No. 96/1985, has been affirmed dismissing the appeal on merits in absence of appellants or their counsels. The appellants have assailed impugned Judgment challenging the correctness of the order passed by the lower court as well as the first appellate court. 2. The order passed by the learned Trial Court was on remand from the Court of 10th A.J.C. - cum - 3rd Special Judge, CBI (AHD Scam Cases) by virtue of Judgment dated 24.07.2007, passed in Title Appeal No. 12/2005. The appellate court remanded this case U/O XLI Rule 25 C.P.C. for giving findings on the point of title of the parties. The issues were also formulated by the Appellate Court for determination of the case: (I) Whether the plaintiffs have got better title than that of the defendants or the defendants have perfected their right, title, interest and possession over the suit properties by virtue of adverse possession? (II) Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation? 3. This Court at the time of ‘Admission, found that appeal itself is hopelessly barred by limitation of 1119 days. Before entering into merits of the case, it is proper to decide limitation petition first and as such I.A. No. 2124 of 2018 is taken on board. 4. Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the appellant had sufficient cause to file this appeal and the same has been mentioned in paragraphs 3 and 7 of the Limitation Petition. It has been further submitted that appellants had to go outside for earning their livelihood and at the relevant point of time, they were residing at Odisha and as the plaintiffs have taken no step for paying advoleram court fee and also for taking any step for summons on the defendants (appellants herein), the appellants were under impression that they will be served summons after the plaintiffs complies with the necessary requirement. Learned counsel further submits that in the present case, the appellants have never served with the summons and court below has proceeded ex-parte against them only on the basis that the plaintiffs have published the notice in the newspaper and returned his finding on the issues framed by the appellate court. In absence of appellants any order passed is nullity in the eyes of law and as such the appellants have good ground for condoning the delay. Learned counsel submits that appellants came to know about the orders only at the time of filing of Execution Case. 5. On the other hand Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that they have filed reply to I.A. No. 2124 of 2018 and vehemently opposes contention of learned counsel for the appellants. Learned counsel further submits that the entire ground of no notice is fully concocted and without any basis and the same is fit to be struck down. The falsity of claim of the appellant that they were not aware regarding proceedings of Title Appeal No. 12/2005 would be evident from bare perusal of the order sheet of said Title Appeal No. 12/2005. Hazari was duly filed on behalf of the appellant on 14.03.2012 and counsel appearing for the appellant before the learned lower appellate court sought adjournment and as such appellants were very much aware regarding the proceedings of said Title Appeal No. 12 of 2005. Learned counsel submits that order passed by the appellate court is fully justified which also finds strength from the order sheet which has been brought on record. The first appellate court was also of the view that in the suit, the defendants/appellants did not chose to appear after remand of the case despite substituted service, which shows their conduct that they had participated in the proceeding earlier in appeal and the appellate court set aside the findings of the lower court on three issues and remanded back the case before the trial court. The appellants did not appear before the Trial Court despite service vide advertisement in daily newspaper and as such trial court proceeded ex-parte as despite repeated direction, the appellant did not appear in appeal. 6. From the abovementioned facts, it appears that conduct of the appellants is not up-to-mark. The appellants did not appear before the Trial Court despite service vide advertisement in daily newspaper and as such trial court proceeded ex-parte as despite repeated direction, the appellant did not appear in appeal. 6. From the abovementioned facts, it appears that conduct of the appellants is not up-to-mark. The submission of learned counsel for the respondents find strength from the order sheet that in spite of repeated orders, the appellant failed to appear before the Court and as such, plea of the appellant that no notice was given is falsified. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents heavily relies on the Judgment of this Court passed in the cases of (i) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Runiya Binha and others reported in 2008(4) Civil LJ 836. (ii) Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) by Lrs. Vs. Exe. Eng. Jalgaon Medium project & Anr. reported in 2009 SAR (Civil) 41. (iii) Maniben Devraj Shah Vs. Mun. Corp. of Brihan Mumbai reported in 2012 SAR (Civil) 385 (iv) Mohd. Sahid and others Vs. Mohd. Raziya Khanam (D) Thr. Lrs. And Anr. reported in 2019 SAR (Civil) 111 Rule 3-A of Order XLI of Code of Civil Procedure (inserted by CPC Amendment Act, 1976) reads as under: “3-A Application for condonation of delay. - (1) When an appeal is presented after the expiry of the period of limitation specified therefor, it shall be accompanied by an application supported by affidavit setting forth the facts on which the appellant relies to satisfy the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within such period.” Admittedly, at the time of preferring the appeal, limitation petition was not filed. It was filed only after more than ten months. From perusal of record, it transpires that appeal was filed on 15.05.2017 and limitation petition was filed on 08.03.2018 i.e. after more than ten months. 4. Similar issue fell for consideration before Division Bench of this Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Runiya Binha and others (Supra). Para-4 of the said Judgment is relevant to be quoted herein:- “5. 4. Similar issue fell for consideration before Division Bench of this Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Runiya Binha and others (Supra). Para-4 of the said Judgment is relevant to be quoted herein:- “5. From bare perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is manifestly clear that filing of limitation petition along with the memo of appeal setting forth the facts on which the appellant relies to satisfy the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within such period, has been made mandatory.” The Court was of the view that limitation petition is required to be filed with memo of appeal and when not filed and no explanation is given explaining the delay of not filing the same along with appeal, the delay cannot be condoned and appeal stands dismissed as time barred. Quoting Order XLI Rule 3-A of Code of Civil Procedure, the Court was of the view that it is manifestly clear that filing of limitation petition along with memo of appeal setting forth to satisfy the Court that he has sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within such period, has been made mandatory. Para-6 of the said Judgment reads as under: “6. In the light of the aforesaid provision, we are of the view that if the time barred memo of appeal is filed without accompanying the limitation petition, then the Court must have it strictly and, in exceptional circumstances, delay is to be condoned if the limitation petition is filed subsequent to the filing of the memo of appeal.” 5. This Court is fully satisfied that no incidental circumstances have been explained which caused not to file limitation petition along with the memo of appeal, which has not been explained in the memo or in the limitation petition. Admittedly limitation petition was filed after a period of ten months of filing of the memo of appeal. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) by Lrs. Vs. Exe. Eng. Jalgaon Medium project & Anr. reported in 2009 SAR (Civil) 41 has also dealt with the matter and paragraphs – 13 and 14 are relevant to be quoted herein: “13. Whether the respondent had satisfied the court that it had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeals within the prescribed time? Vs. Exe. Eng. Jalgaon Medium project & Anr. reported in 2009 SAR (Civil) 41 has also dealt with the matter and paragraphs – 13 and 14 are relevant to be quoted herein: “13. Whether the respondent had satisfied the court that it had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeals within the prescribed time? Section 5 of the Limitation Act provides for extension of prescribed period of limitation in certain cases and confers jurisdiction upon the court to admit any application or any appeal after the prescribed period if it is satisfied that the appellant or applicant had sufficient cause for not preferring such appeal or application within the prescribed period. 14. In the present case the Reference Court passed the award under Section 18 of the Act on 09.03.2000. On 13.04.2000 itself the Government took decision not to prefer any appeal against the decree and award passed by the Reference Court and accordingly communicated its decision to all the concerned including the respondent. The Government vide its order dated 21.05.2001 refused to review its decision and accordingly informed the same to the respondent beneficiary of acquisition. The respondent beneficiary in its application seeking condonation of delay refers to the letter dated 19.11.2003 issued by the Secretary, Irrigation Department, directing it to obtain legal advice from an advocate to initiate appropriate proceedings. The respondent instead of acting in the matter once again had chosen to address S.L.A.O. vide letter dated 06.02.2004 with a request to challenge the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court. The same request was made by repeating reminders upto 12.07.2004. On 18.05.2004, the respondent beneficiary addressed a letter to the Collector requesting him to direct the Land Acquisition Officer to prefer an appeal. This correspondence continued up to 21.06.2004. Thereafter, the application along with the appeal seeking condonation of delay was filed on 25th February, 2005. The applicant having set the machinery in motion cannot abandon it to resume it after number of years because the authority with whom it had entered into correspondence did not heed to its request to file appeals. The question is : Can the respondent/ applicant in this case take advantage of its negligence, after lapse of number of years, of the decision of Government? It knew the exact ground on which appeals could have been preferred. The question is : Can the respondent/ applicant in this case take advantage of its negligence, after lapse of number of years, of the decision of Government? It knew the exact ground on which appeals could have been preferred. The law will presume that it knew of its right to file appeal against the award. Everybody is presumed to know law. It was its duty to prefer appeals before the court for consideration which it did not. There is no explanation forthcoming in this regard. The evidence on record suggest neglect of its own right for long time in preferring appeals. The court cannot enquire into belated and stale claims on the ground of equity. Delay defeats equity. The court helps those who are vigilant and ‘do not slumber over their rights.’ The question for consideration is whether the averments disclosed any sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay of 1724 days in filing the appeals. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maniben Devraj Shah (Supra) has held that sufficient cause largely depend on bona fide nature of the explanation. If the explanation is found to be concocted then it would be a legitimate exercise of discretion not to condone the delay. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Sahid and others Vs. Raziya Khanam (D) Thr. and anr. (Supra) has held therein that the appelants were not vigilant, rather they had been negligent. Pointing out that the appellants/applicants made incorrect averments in the application and that no sufficient and reasonable cause has been shown by the appellants for the delay, the application was dismissed by the First Appellate Court. After reerring to the order sheets concerned and the subsequent hearings in the suit, the First Appellate Court as well as the High Court having rightly recorded concurrently the findings that the appellants had full knowledge about the proceedings of the original suit and have not come out with the correct facts. Both the First Appellate Court and the High Court having recorded concurrent findings that the appellants have filed the application for condonation of delay with incorrect facts and were negligent in pursuing the matter and rightly refused to condone the delay. The appellant was, therefore, held liable to be dismissed and consequently dismissed. 8. In reply to the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court, Mr. The appellant was, therefore, held liable to be dismissed and consequently dismissed. 8. In reply to the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court, Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Tiwary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants places heavy reliance on Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Ghanshyam Dass Gupta Vs. Makhal Lal passed in Civil Appeal No. 5950 of 2012 [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 13475 of 2012 and the order dated 28.08.1996 passed in the case of Abdur Rahman & others Vs. Athifa Begum & Others and further argues that since on merits appellants have a good case, which is supported by the aforesaid Judgments, even if it is hopelessly barred by limitation, it should be condoned. 9. Having heard counsel for the parties and upon perusal of records, Judgments cited by learned counsels, this Court is of the considered view and as per the law of land, before entering into merits of the case, if the appeal is hopelessly barred by limitation, the limitation has to be decided first. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Sahid and others (Supra) has clearly held that in case of concurrent findings and when appellants have full knowledge about the proceedings of the suit, which is apparent from the order sheet brought on record, the application for condonation of delay with incorrect facts, cannot be condoned. No sufficient cause has been shown neither pleaded for condonation of delay of 1119 days. The Hon’ble Apex Court in several cases have held that when there is sufficient cause explained, delay can be condoned. In the instant case, no sufficient cause has shown and from the order sheet it is very clear that the appellants were aware of the proceedings of the suit and the grounds taken by the learned counsel is not accepted by this Court. 10. In the circumstances, I.A. No. 2124 of 2018 filed for condonation of delay in preferring this appeal is dismissed. 11. As it is a case of concurrent finding, this Court shall not interfere in concurrent findings of fact on merit also. As a sequel of aforesaid discussion, this appeal stands dismissed. 12. All pending interlocutory applications also stand disposed of.