JUDGMENT : (Prayer in C.M.P. Miscellaneous Petition filed under Rule 3(A) r/w 42(1) of C.P.C to condone the delay of 1072 days in filing the second appeal Sr.No.81494 of 2022. In S.A. Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C against the decree and judgment dated 20.02.2019 in A.S.No.7 of 2007 on the file of the Subordinate Judge at Ranipet, Vellore District confirming the decree and judgment dated 17.03.2017 in O.S.No.55 of 2014 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate No.1, Walajapet, Vellore District.) 1. The above petition is filed for condoning the delay of 1072 days in filing the second appeal. 2.The reason given for the delay is that after the appeal filed by the appellants herein was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge, Ranipet on 20.02.2019, the printed copy of the judgment and decree was applied only in November 2019. The appellants would submit that their father, Gopal, who was the sole defendant had fallen ill and was not in a position to contact his counsel for further proceedings. Thereafter, on 23.03.2020, the national lock down was imposed from 23.03.2020 on account of the covid pandemic. This was also a reason for the sole defendant being unable to pursue the matter further. Thereafter, he passed away on 29.04.2022 leaving behind the appellants herein as his legal representatives. They had thereafter contacted their counsel and obtained the copies and instructed the present counsel for filing the second appeal. As a result of which, the delay has crept in. 3. A counter has been filed by the respondent-Municipality inter alia contending that the very institution of the suit is by suppression of facts. The suit O.S.No.55 of 2015, instituted on the file of the District Munsif, Walajapet, from out of which the present second appeal emanates, was filed by the respondent-Municipality for declaring the ex parte decree which the sole defendant had obtained in a suit O.S.No.46 of 2006 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and for an injunction restraining the defendant his men, agents and servants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. 4. The suit O.S.No.46 of 2006 had been filed by the defendant for a declaration that the suit property belongs to him and for recovery of possession. 4. The suit O.S.No.46 of 2006 had been filed by the defendant for a declaration that the suit property belongs to him and for recovery of possession. The appellants had suppressed the fact that the deceased defendant had already executed a gift deed in respect of a suit property in favour of the respondent herein (This gift deed has been marked as Ex.A1 in the present proceedings). The respondent would further submit that although the suit was decreed on 20.02.2019, the deceased defendant had obtained the certified copy of the judgement and decree only in November 2019, i.e. nearly six months after the judgement was pronounced. There is no explanation as to why the steps were not taken to file an appeal particularly when the locked down had kicked in only a year later in March 2020. The sole defendant had passed away on 29.04.2022, i.e. three years after the decree in A.S.No.7 of 2017 had been pronounced Even thereafter, there has been a delay and the appeal has come to be filed only on 29.07.2022. Therefore, the respondent would submit that the delay, apart from being inordinate, has not been properly explained. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants would primarily base his argument on the point that the very filing of the suit was bad in law in as much as the respondent Municipality which instituted the suit for declaring the decree obtained in an earlier suit as null and void, has not chosen to implead all the parties to the proceedings and therefore, the suit has to be rejected on the ground of non joinder of necessary parties. He had also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1964 SC 1889 [Rup Chand Gupta Vs. Raghuvanshi Private Limited and Another]. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-Municipality would reiterate the contents of the counter and state that the earlier suit is not only collusive but also filed by suppressing the true facts. 7. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 8. In the background of above submissions, it would make useful reading to refer to the facts which has culminated in filing of this petition. 7. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 8. In the background of above submissions, it would make useful reading to refer to the facts which has culminated in filing of this petition. The suit which is the subject matter of the present second appeal has been filed to declare the judgment and decree that the respondent had obtained an ex-parte decree in O.S.No.46 of 2006 on the file of this Court, as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and for permanent injunction. The respondent Municipality had contended that the defendant had converted the agricultural lands owned by him measuring an extent of 2.23 acres into housing plots. For this purpose, he had applied for approval of layout from the Director of Town and Country Planning on 18.12.1994. The approval was also granted and as per the approved layout, the defendant had conveyed a part of the said land for roads and a vacant site measuring 9,800 sq.ft to be used as a park. The defendant had executed a gift deed dated 31.05.1994 in favour of the respondent-Municipality. The respondent Municipality had also accepted the aforesaid gift deed by a Resolution dated 28.10.1994. 9. Ever since the above, the respondent is in enjoyment of the same. The housing plots had all been sold by the defendant to the third parties and the purchasers had also constructed the houses. Despite knowing that the common area, namely the suit property was being maintained by the respondent, the defendant suppressing the gift deed had filed a suit O.S.No.46 of 2006 on the file of this Court against the third parties without impleading the respondent Municipality for declaration and delivery of possession. Since the suit was a collusive one, the appellants had obtained an ex-parte decree on 25.04.2008 as there was no contest. The appellants, taking advantage of the fact that the property remains vacant, took a defense, admitting the gift deed but stating that the respondent Municipality was not handed over possession of the lands and the same continued in possession of the appellants. Since certain persons had illegally occupied the property and constructed a temple, the appellants had filed a suit O.S.No.46 of 2006 for declaration and recovery of possession. Since certain persons had illegally occupied the property and constructed a temple, the appellants had filed a suit O.S.No.46 of 2006 for declaration and recovery of possession. The appellants would submit that the respondent-Municipality had not taken any steps to prevent the construction of the temple, which would clearly show that they have not taken possession of the property. The respondent would submit that therefore from the date of the gift deed, they have continued to be in uninterrupted possession for over 15 years and had therefore, perfected title by adverse possession. The present suit is filed 20 years after the gift deed and that too on a premise that the suit is filed against the respondent and ought to be dismissed. The trial Court had after contest, dismissed the suit as prayed for. This judgment and decree was upheld by the learned Subordinate Judge, Ranipet, Vellore in A.S.No.7 of 2017 in and by which, the appeal filed by the defendant had been dismissed. It is challenging the said concurrent judgment and decree of the Courts below that the appellants are before this Court. The appellants have not satisfactorily explained the delay. In fact, there is no explanation as to why steps were not taken for the period from 20.02.2019 till 23.03.2020 when the national lock down has been declared and after the lock down had been lifted till July 2022, when the appeal came to be filed. Except for contending that the sole defendant, the father of the appellants, had fallen ill, there is no other reason given, more particularly when there are two sons The earlier suit has been filed contending that the appellants were never handed over the possession to the Municipality whereas the respondent-Municipality would submit that a gift deed had been executed by the sole defendant in favour of the Municipality on 31.05.1994 and a resolution accepting the gift deed had been passed on 28.10.1994. From that date, the respondent has been in absolute continuous and uninterrupted possession. The roads on the park site were earmarked for public usage. Therefore, the basis of the earlier suit itself is wrong and the ex-parte decree obtained only proves the collusive nature of the suit. The Courts below have extensively considered the evidence, particularly the gifting of the suit property by the sole defendant under Ex.A1 to the respondent Municipality for decreeing the suit. Therefore, the basis of the earlier suit itself is wrong and the ex-parte decree obtained only proves the collusive nature of the suit. The Courts below have extensively considered the evidence, particularly the gifting of the suit property by the sole defendant under Ex.A1 to the respondent Municipality for decreeing the suit. The judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants would not better the case of the appellants and non-joinder of the defendant in O.S.46 of 2006 would not be fatal to the case since the defendants therein have not challenged the decree passed against them and the only party who is aggrieved by the decree in the present suit are the appellants herein. 10. Considering the fact that the appellants have not satisfactorily explained the delay, the petition for condoning the delay is dismissed. Consequently, the Second Appeal is rejected at the S.R. stage itself. No costs.