ORDER : By way of this application, the applicants are seeking restoration of Second Appeal No.285/2003 which was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 14.2.2017 (Annexure A/1). This restoration application has been filed with a delay of 1094 days, hence an application (IA No.01/2022) for condoning the said delay has also been filed. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that from the records of the said second appeal it appears that appellant Kanchan Bai died on 15.5.2013 and thereafter on 29.7.2013 an application for bringing the legal heirs of the deceased appellant was filed within time but as per direction of this Court, on 13.1.2017 suitable application under Order 22 Rule 3 of CPC was filed. The matter was listed for hearing on the said application on 14.2.2017, however, there being no representation on behalf of the appellant, the second appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution. He submits that the suit of the respondent/plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 11.7.2000, however, his appeal was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 10.4.2003, therefore, the mother of the applicants herein namely Kanchan Bai filed the instant second appeal in the year 2003 and vide order dated 20.5.2003, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and judgment of the appellate Court, this Court directed for maintaining status quo till disposal of the appeal and pursuant thereto, the appellant peacefully resided on the land in question. However, after dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution in the year 2017, due to lack of knowledge of dismissal of the appeal as the applicants who belonged to poor labour family failed to pursue the matter properly, they could not take further steps for restoration of the appeal. After receiving execution notice dated 10.2.2022 (Annexure A/3), for the first time they came to know about dismissal of their appeal. He submits that the original defendant Kanchan Bai, mother of the applicants, was diligently pursuing the matter and after her death, her legal heirs i.e. the applicants herein moved an application for contesting the case on her behalf. Since they were facing medical problems and starvation and daughter of Kanchan Bai also suffered shock due to death of her husband, they were not in contact with their counsel. Since they were facing medical problems and starvation and daughter of Kanchan Bai also suffered shock due to death of her husband, they were not in contact with their counsel. He further submits that due to oversight, they could not see listing of the matter on 14.2.2017 and therefore, in absence of counsel for the appellant, the appeal stood dismissed for want of prosecution. However, the applicants have a good prima facie case on merits, therefore, to advance the cause of justice, delay occurred in filing the restoration application may be condoned and the second appeal be restored to its original number for being decided on merits. Reliance has been placed on the order dated 12th May, 2023 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior in Misc. Civil Case No.175 of 2023 in the matter of Murarilal and others Vs. State of MP and another. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicant vehemently opposes the prayer of the applicants and submits that from bare perusal of the application seeking condonation of delay it would be apparent that no sufficient and reasonable explanation is given by the applicants for condoning the inordinate delay of 1094 days in filing the application for restoration of the second appeal whereas they were required to explain day to day delay for filing the MCC. From the contents of the said application, it is evident that the applicants were well aware of pendency of the second appeal and therefore, after death of original defendant i.e. mother of the applicants, they moved an application for bringing LRs on record. Though the applicants have taken ground of medical problems but no such document has been filed by them. The applicants have sufficient means of livelihood, so the ground of starvation is also incorrect. Because of pendency of the appeal, the non-applicant is deprived of fruits of the decree and all this is nothing but delaying tactics of the applicants. It is well settled law that in civil matters, the parties are required to give each day’s delay but in the present case, no such effort is made and very casual explanation has been offered by the applicants. Therefore, the present application for condonation of delay is liable to be rejected and consequently, the MCC be dismissed as being hopelessly time barred. Therefore, the present application for condonation of delay is liable to be rejected and consequently, the MCC be dismissed as being hopelessly time barred. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao Vs. Reddy Sridevi and others, AIR 2022 SC 332 . 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. It is clear from the record of SA No.285/2003 that this appeal was filed on 2.5.2003 and on 14.2.2017 the same was dismissed for want of prosecution. Now the applicants has filed an application for restoration of the appeal on 31.3.2022 along with an application for condonation of delay of 1094 days in filing the restoration application. In their application for condonation of delay, it is averred that their mother Kanchan Bai, who was original defendant, was vigilant in pursuing the case and she used to attend the proceedings of the case. However, she died on 15.5.2013 and thereafter, on 29.7.2013 an application for bringing her legal heirs on record was filed. As per direction of this Court on 3.1.2017, suitable application under Order 22 Rule 3 of CPC was filed by the applicants on 13.1.2017. It is clear from the order sheet dated 7.12.2016 of SA No.285/2003 that this Court had granted two weeks’ time to file application for bringing legal representatives of the deceased appellant on record whereas the application was filed on 13.1.2017, though they had earlier filed application under Order 22 Rule 3 of CPC on 29.7.2013. However, thereafter there was no representation on behalf of the deceased appellant, hence the appeal was dismissed on 14.2.2017 for want of prosecution. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao (supra) observed in paras 7.2, 7.3 and 8 of its judgment as under: “7.2 In the case of P.K. Ramachandran (supra), while refusing to condone the delay of 565 days, it is observed that in the absence of reasonable, satisfactory or even appropriate explanation for seeking condonation of delay, the same is not to be condoned lightly. It is further observed that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. It is further observed that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. It is further observed that while exercising discretion for condoning the delay, the court has to exercise discretion judiciously. 7.3 In the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil (supra), it is observed as under: “The laws of limitation are founded on public policy. Statutes of limitation are sometimes described as “statutes of peace”. An unlimited and perpetual threat of limitation creates insecurity and uncertainty; some kind of limitation is essential for public order. The principle is based on the maxim “interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium”, that is, the interest of the State requires that there should be end to litigation but at the same time laws of limitation are a means to ensure private justice suppressing fraud and perjury, quickening diligence and preventing oppression. The object for fixing time-limit for litigation is based on public policy fixing a lifespan for legal remedy for the purpose of general welfare. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but avail their legal remedies promptly. Salmond in his Jurisprudence states that the laws come to the assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy.” 7.4 In the case of Basawaraj (supra), it is observed and held by this Court that the discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based on facts and circumstances of each case. It is further observed that the expression “sufficient cause” cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides is attributed to the party. It is further observed that even though limitation may harshly affect rights of a party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when prescribed by statute. It is further observed that in case a party has acted with negligence, lack of bona fides or there is inaction then there cannot be any justified ground for condoning the delay even by imposing conditions. It is observed that each application for condonation of delay has to be decided within the framework laid down by this Court. It is further observed that in case a party has acted with negligence, lack of bona fides or there is inaction then there cannot be any justified ground for condoning the delay even by imposing conditions. It is observed that each application for condonation of delay has to be decided within the framework laid down by this Court. It is further observed that if courts start condoning delay where no sufficient cause is made out by imposing conditions then that would amount to violation of statutory principles and showing utter disregard to legislature. 8. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand and considering the averments in the application for condonation of delay, we are of the opinion that as such no explanation much less a sufficient or a satisfactory explanation had been offered by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein – appellants before the High Court for condonation of huge delay of 1011 days in preferring the Second Appeal. The High Court is not at all justified in exercising its discretion to condone such a huge delay. The High Court has not exercised the discretion judiciously. The reasoning given by the High Court while condoning huge delay of 1011 days is not germane. Therefore, the High Court has erred in condoning the huge delay of 1011 days in preferring the appeal by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein – original defendants. Impugned order passed by the High Court is unsustainable both, on law as well as on facts.” 7. In the case in hand also, the original defendant/appellant Kanchan Bai died on 15.5.2013 whereas the applicants filed application for bringing her LRs on record earlier in the year 2013 and thereafter, in the year 2017. Thus, it cannot be denied that the applicants had full knowledge about the second appeal. From the averments made in the application for condonation of delay, this Court finds no sufficient or satisfactory explanation for condoning the inordinate delay of 1094 days. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the aforesaid judgment in the matter of Majji Sannemma (supra) of the Hon’le Supreme Court, it would not be appropriate to condone the huge delay of 1094 days in filing the restoration application. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the aforesaid judgment in the matter of Majji Sannemma (supra) of the Hon’le Supreme Court, it would not be appropriate to condone the huge delay of 1094 days in filing the restoration application. Accordingly, the application (IA No.01/2022) for condonation of delay is rejected and consequently, the MCC stands dismissed for being time barred.