ORDER : This revision is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( for short “C.P.C.) to set aside the order dated 18.01.2016 in I.A.No.1269 of 2015 in AS (SR) No.6539 of 2015 on the file of the Principal District Judge, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The respondents filed a suit in O.S.No.672 of 2007 for partition of the schedule properties and the same was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 03.06.2014. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed appeal with delay of (365) days along with delay condonation application in I.A.No.1269 of 2015 under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 (for short “the Act”) to condone the delay of (365) days on the ground that due to the family disputes, he could not contact his counsel to enquire about the result of the suit and that caused delay in filing the appeal. 4. The respondents resisted the said application by way of counter affidavit. On a consideration of the material on record, the appellate Court vide order dated 18.01.2016 dismissed the said application. 5. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, the sole reason assigned by the petitioner is that due to family disputes, he could not contact his counsel and thereby, the delay of (365) days was occurred and he could not prefer the appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court in O.S.No.672 of 2007. The petitioner further stated that he has good case to defend his right and if the delay is not condoned, it would cause injustice to him. 6. The appellate Court has discussed in detail about the reason assigned by the petitioner in the application for condonation of delay. 7. In Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari, AIR 1969 SC 575 , the Apex Court held that “...If the appellant makes out sufficient cause for the delay, the Court may in its discretion condone the delay. 6. The appellate Court has discussed in detail about the reason assigned by the petitioner in the application for condonation of delay. 7. In Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari, AIR 1969 SC 575 , the Apex Court held that “...If the appellant makes out sufficient cause for the delay, the Court may in its discretion condone the delay. As laid down in Krishna v. Chathappan [ILR 13 Madras 269, 271] Section 5 gives the courts a discretion which in respect of jurisdiction is to be exercised in the way in which judicial power and discretion ought to be exercised upon principles which are well understood; the words “sufficient cause” receiving a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence nor inaction nor want of bona fides is imputable to the appellant.” In N.Balakrishnan v. M.Krishna Murthy, (1998) 7 Supreme Court Cases 123, the Apex Court at para No.9 held as under: “ It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases delay of very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory…. In Brijesh Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2014) 11 Supreme Court Cases 351, the Apex Court at para No.10 held as under: “The courts should not adopt an injustice-oriented approach in rejecting the application for condonation of delay. However the court while allowing such application has to draw a distinction between delay and inordinate delay for want of bona fides of an inaction or negligence would deprive a party of the protection of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Sufficient cause is a condition precedent for exercise of discretion by the Court for condoning the delay. This Court has time and again held that when mandatory provision is not complied with and that delay is not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained, the court cannot condone the delay on sympathetic grounds alone.” 8. In the instant case, the petitioner has not explained the delay properly and satisfactorily. This Court has time and again held that when mandatory provision is not complied with and that delay is not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained, the court cannot condone the delay on sympathetic grounds alone.” 8. In the instant case, the petitioner has not explained the delay properly and satisfactorily. He has not assigned the sufficient cause to condone the delay of (365) days in filing the appeal. The only ground urged by the petitioner is that as he was having family disputes, he could not contact the counsel to enquire about the result of the suit and by the time, he approached the counsel, the said delay was occurred. It is well settled principle that Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. Therefore, in the instant case, the reason assigned by the petitioner for the delay was found not satisfactory and it is not a sufficient cause to condone the delay. The trial Court has rightly dismissed the application under the impugned order. 9. For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality warrants interference by this Court. 10. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.