JUDGMENT a.K. Menon, J. - Miscellaneous Civil application No. 2532 of 2021 (F) primarily seeks restoration of the Second appeal, which came to be dismissed on 12.08.2011 for non prosecution. There is a delay of 3730 days i.e. about 10 years 2 months and 21 days. Miscellaneous Civil application No. 2533 of 2021 (F) has been filed for condonation of that delay. 2. The learned Counsel for the applicants in support of her application submits that the applicant no. 1 was 95 years old when the matter came to be dismissed for want of prosecution. Thereafter, the advocate for the applicants/appellants was granted discharge and the applicants were unaware of the fact that the appeal was dismissed. The cause title indicates that there were four appellants in all. On a query from the Court as to the age of the second appellant/applicant no. 2, the learned Counsel for the applicants relied upon a medical certificate stating that the applicant was suffering from psychosis and was advised treatment. The certificate is issued by Dr. Venkatesh Hegde of Sri Sri Kripa Clinic and Sai Lab. The certification is in respect of state of health of one Yeshwant Yellurlar, who is not an appellant. It appears that he is the father of one of the appellants. On a query from the Court as to why the other appellants were not attending to this matter, my attention is invited to paragraph 8 of the application. Paragraph 8 of the application reads as follows: 'The appellant no. 1 states that being 95 years of age at the time of dismissal of the appeal, she could not follow up with the matter regularly on account of various health issues. That the appellant nos. 2 and 3 being married daughters of the appellant were residing at Margao and Mapusa respectively and were unaware of the proceedings in the court.' 3. To my mind, the reasons given in paragraph 8 of the application are unsatisfactory and insufficient for condoning the delay of 3730 days. Furthermore, it is pointed out on behalf of respondent no. 1 that earlier, an application (Miscellaneous Civil application No. 505 of 2015) for condonation of delay had been filed, which came to be withdrawn, albeit, with liberty to file appropriate application. Furthermore, it is pointed out on behalf of respondent no. 1 that earlier, an application (Miscellaneous Civil application No. 505 of 2015) for condonation of delay had been filed, which came to be withdrawn, albeit, with liberty to file appropriate application. It is material to note that Miscellaneous Civil application No. 505 of 2015 was allowed to be withdrawn on 29.09.2017, when the appellants were represented by an advocate. Despite that liberty granted on 29.09.2017, the present application is filed only on 30.11.2021. The reasons stated in the application for condoning the unconscionable delay are completely unsatisfactory. 4. In view thereof, I find no merit in the application for condonation of delay and the same is dismissed. Consequently, the application seeking restoration is disposed as infructuous.