JUDGMENT : 1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the defendant in the suit challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 11.03.2008 passed by the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC., Doddaballapur, in O.S. No.78/2007 and also the Judgment and Decree dated 10.01.2013 in R.A. No.94/2008 passed by the First Appellate Court (Fast Track Court, Doddaballapur). 2. For the sake of brevity and easy understanding, the parties in this judgment are referred to as they were arrayed before the Trial Court. Appellant was the defendant while the respondents were plaintiffs before the Trial Court. 3. A suit in O.S. No.78/2007 was filed to declare that the sale deed executed by plaintiff No.2 in favour of the defendant on 10.03.2004 was invalid, null and void and for consequential relief of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit schedule property. 4. Notice of the suit was stated to have been served upon the defendant and the defendant was placed ex parte. Thereupon, the suit was decreed ex parte. 5. The defendant filed a Regular Appeal before the First Appellate Court albeit with a delay of 266 days. An application for condonation of delay was filed. It was stated in the affidavit that the defendant was not served with the notice and that he had not appeared before the Court. He stated that he came to know of the filing of the suit only on 15.10.2008. The plaintiffs came to the land and indulged in a verbal exchange with the defendant. The First Appellate Court without recording any evidence, felt that the cause shown for the condonation of delay is not sufficient and hence, dismissed the appeal in terms of the Judgment dated 10th January 2013. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the defendant is in this Regular Second Appeal. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and respondent No.1, who is party-in-person. Perused the judgments and decrees passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and also the grounds urged in support of the appeal memorandum. 7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the defendant is in this Regular Second Appeal. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and respondent No.1, who is party-in-person. Perused the judgments and decrees passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and also the grounds urged in support of the appeal memorandum. 7. The plaintiff No.1, a practicing Advocate who appeared in person claimed that the present appeal is not maintainable in view of the Judgment of a Full Bench of this Court rendered in the case of The Commissioner, Hubli-Dharwad Municipal Corporation, Dharwad v. Shrishail and Others reported in 2003 (6) Karnataka Law Journal 279 . The issue whether an appeal or a revision is maintainable against an Order dismissing a First appeal on the ground of delay was put to rest by a Judgment of a Full Bench of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Shyam Sundar Sarma v. Pannalal Jaiswal and Others reported in 2005 (1) Karnataka Civil and Criminal Reporter 7. In that view of the matter, the contention of the plaintiffs is puerile. 8. The suit in question was filed for a substantive relief namely to anull a sale deed that was executed by the plaintiff No.2 in favour of the defendant. The first Appellate Court has noticed that the summons that was issued to the defendant and marked as Ex.C1 was received by the defendant and his signature was marked as Ex.C1(a). The postal acknowledgment was also marked as Ex.R1, wherein the signature of the appellant was found. The First Appellate Court compared both the signatures of the defendant on Ex.R1(a) and Ex.C1(a) and both the signatures tallied. The First Appellate Court held that the defendant despite receiving notice for the reasons unknown has not participated in the proceedings. The first Appellate Court held that the contention of the defendant that he was not aware of filing of the suit was not sustainable and bona fide in case where a declaration is sought to anull the sale deed. The same would result in serious civil consequences. The delay of 266 days is explained by the defendant that he was not aware of filing of the suit. The same would result in serious civil consequences. The delay of 266 days is explained by the defendant that he was not aware of filing of the suit. The proper course that could have been adopted by the first Appellate Court was to record the submission of the witnesses in justification of the claim made by the defendant. 9. Having regard to a slew of cases, wherein the Courts have held that delay has to be liberally construed, following the Judgment of the Hon`ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another v. Mst.Katiji and others reported in (1987) 2 Supreme Court Cases 107, this Court would feel it proper to allow the appeal and remit the case to the Trial Court for reconsideration subject to the defendant paying cost of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand) to the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the Regular Second Appeal is allowed. The impugned Judgments and Decrees of the Courts below are set aside. The matter is remanded to the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC., Doddaballapur, for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The parties shall appear before the Trial Court on 05.03.2020. The defendant shall tender the cost of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand) to the plaintiffs and file his written statement on the said day. The Trial Court is requested to dispose of the suit at the earliest and not later than one year therefrom. It is made clear that all the revenue entries shall be subject to the outcome of the suit.