JUDGMENT : VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J. 1. This application has been filed for condonation of delay in filing Regular Second Appeal against judgment and decree dated 27.11.2014 passed by Additional District Judge (II), Mandi in Civil Appeal No. 775 of 2013, titled as Chuni Lal and Others vs. Gulzari Lal, whereby reversing judgment and decree dated 26.4.2013 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No. 2 Mandi, suit of plaintiffs Chuni Lal and others has been decreed. 2. Registry has reported that there is delay of 5 years and 12 days in filing the appeal. 3. The appeal has been proposed to be filed by son of defendant Gulzari on the ground that he was not aware about the litigation in reference and he came to know about it only after the death of his father Gulzari Lal and, therefore, he has preferred appeal alongwith this application for condonation of delay. 4. Plaintiffs in present case on 29.10.2009 had filed Civil Suit for declaration, which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 26.4.2013, whereupon plaintiffs had preferred Civil Appeal No. 775 of 2013, which was allowed and the suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 27.11.2014 to the extent that entry showing Gulzari Lal in possession of suit land as non-occupancy tenant against ½ share of Sadhu S/o Chhajju, was liable to be deleted being declared illegal and in his place legal heirs of Sadhu son of Chhajju were held entitled for that as non-occupancy tenants to the extent of ½ share and suit of plaintiffs was also decreed for permanent prohibitory injunction by restraining Gulzari Lal, permanently from interfering in peaceful possession of suit land. 5. Gulzari Lal expired on 9.3.2018, i.e. about 3½ years after passing of judgment and decree in this Civil Appeal. Limitation period had already expired during life time of Gulzari Lal. Now, after death of Gulzari Lal, his legal heir cannot claim for condonation of delay on the ground that during life time of Gulzari Lal he was not aware about the litigation. It is not a case where respondent was not served and/or respondent was unrepresented for no lapse on his part. In present case Gulzari Lal had contested the suit as well as appeal and he did not assail impugned judgment and decree passed in Civil Appeal. It is not a case where respondent was not served and/or respondent was unrepresented for no lapse on his part. In present case Gulzari Lal had contested the suit as well as appeal and he did not assail impugned judgment and decree passed in Civil Appeal. The ground taken for condonation of delay amounts to taking a plea that delay in filing the appeal has been caused because father of applicant, Gulzari Lal was alive. Such a plea can never be permitted as legal heir enters into the shoes of predecessor-in-interest who in present case is father. Gulzari Lal was alive for more than 3 years after passing of judgment and decree in appeal and there is no reason on record for not filing the appeal by Gulzari Lal, rather it appears that Gulzari had accepted the impugned judgment and being satisfied with the judgment and decree, he did not assail it and now after his death his legal heir/son cannot claim right to file appeal by stating that he was not made aware by Gulzari Lalabout the litigation. 6. With aforesaid observations, I do not find any merit in the application and the same is dismissed.