JUDGMENT : G. RADHA RANI, J. 1. This application is filed by the petitioners-appellants to condone the delay of (1244) days in filing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2019 in O.S. No. 79 of 2015 on the file of I Additional District Judge at Mahabubnagar. 2. Heard Sri V. Yadu Krishna Sainath, learned counsel for the petitioners-appellants and Sri S.R. Mahzeed, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Ahmed Ehtesham Kawkab, learned counsel for the respondent on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners-appellants submitted that the petitioners filed the above appeal against the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2019 in O.S. No. 79 of 2015 on the file of I Additional District Judge at Mahabubnagar. The petitioners engaged a counsel and he assured them that he would take care of the matter and that he would inform them as and when their presence was required for evidence. Reposing confidence on his words, they were in constant touch with their counsel. However, they were never called to the court for their evidence. Recently, in the Month of June, 2023, the petitioners were informed that they lost the case and the judgment was passed in favour of the respondent herein. As the petitioners were illiterates they depended on their counsel. The petitioners were anticipating that the judgment would be passed in their favour as they had good grounds and as the agreement of sale was fabricated. Recently, they approached another counsel and submitted the suit papers which were served on them along with summons. The counsel enquired in the court and informed them that the petitioners were set ex-parte and the court passed the judgment and decree on 27.09.2019 itself. The respondent filed Execution Proceedings before the court. In fact, the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2019 was not within the knowledge of the petitioners and they could not file the appeal within time. Therefore, there was a delay of (1244) days in filing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2019 in O.S. No. 79 of 2015 on the file of I Additional District Judge at Mahabubnagar, which was neither wilful nor wanton, except due to the reasons stated above. If the present application was not allowed the petitioners-appellants would be put to hardship, mental agony and irreparable loss and prayed to condone the delay of (1244) days in filing the appeal. 4. If the present application was not allowed the petitioners-appellants would be put to hardship, mental agony and irreparable loss and prayed to condone the delay of (1244) days in filing the appeal. 4. Sri S.R. Mahzeed, learned Senior Counsel representing the respondent submitted that the delay was not calculated properly. The judgment and decree was passed on 27.09.2019 in O.S. No. 79 of 2015 and the appeal along with the affidavit were signed by the petitioners on 05.07.2023 i.e. after (1377) days of passing the judgment and decree. After deducting (90) days period for filing the appeal, the delay would come to (1287) days, but not (1244) days. The appellants for their wrongs were accusing their advocate intentionally, who appeared for them before the lower court, whereas the counsel took proper care of the matter and informed the petitioners-appellants about the progress of the case from time to time. He also sent notices to the petitioners and filed proof of communication between him and the petitioners-appellants before the lower court. The petitioners-appellants had not taken any action against the advocate by filing complaint against him before the Bar council. The appellants-defendants and their family members were well aware of all the proceedings at all stages of the suit vide O.S. No. 79 of 2015 and Execution Petition, but placed themselves deliberately away from the proceedings. They received summons and notices at every stage of the suit and the Execution Petition. They received notices in the suit as well as in the Execution Petition and from their counsel appearing for them and also received notices from the courts. Their affidavit was vague and there was no justifiable explanation for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal more particularly, the day to day delay was not explained as required under law. 5. He further submitted that the respondent was constrained to file a suit for specific performance vide O.S. No. 79 of 2015 and along with the suit, filed application seeking ad-interim injunction vide I.A. No. 768 of 2015. In the said I.A. the respondents-defendants filed counter and after due contest the injunction application was allowed by order dated 30.03.2016. After framing the issues, the matter was posted for trial. The respondent - plaintiff filed application to receive documents and the counsel for plaintiffs served the copy of the petition along with the documents to the counsel for the defendants. After framing the issues, the matter was posted for trial. The respondent - plaintiff filed application to receive documents and the counsel for plaintiffs served the copy of the petition along with the documents to the counsel for the defendants. The counsel for defendants then sought time for filing counter in the application. Then on 20.08.2019, the counsel for the defendants filed a memo before the court reporting no instructions from the defendants and sought permission to withdraw their vakalat along with the memo dated 20.08.2019. The counsel for defendants filed a notice dated 16.07.2019, which was addressed to the defendants. The said notice was received by the defendants. The counsel for defendants filed a memo along with copy of the notice and the acknowledgment cards before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge at Mahabubnagar. The acknowledgment card was signed by the wife of the petitioner No. 2-appellant No. 2/Smt.G.Lavanya. O.S. No. 79 of 2015 was decreed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge at Mahabubnagar on 27.09.2019. After the court passing the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 79 of 2015 dated 27.09.2019, the counsel for respondent-plaintiff issued notice of intimation dated 11.11.2019 and communicated the same to the appellants-defendants through registered post with acknowledgment due. The said notice of intimation was received by the appellants-defendants-J.Drs. Having no other alternative, the respondent-plaintiff-D.Hr. filed E.P. No. 16 of 2020 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge at Mahabubnagar for execution of judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 79 of 2015 dated 27.09.2019. 5.1. The executing court issued notices to the J.Drs. The J.Drs. received notices in the Execution Petition No. 16 of 2020. After receiving the notices in E.P. No. 16 of 2020, the judgment debtors i.e. the petitioners herein illegally transferred the suit schedule property in favour of their family members, to get away from the decree and executed documents by suppressing the court cases. By playing fraud and misrepresentation on Government Officials, they illegally executed documents on 08.01.2021. The respondent-plaintiff-D.Hr. immediately obtained the certified copies of the sham documents executed by the appellants-defendants-J.Drs. By playing fraud and misrepresentation on Government Officials, they illegally executed documents on 08.01.2021. The respondent-plaintiff-D.Hr. immediately obtained the certified copies of the sham documents executed by the appellants-defendants-J.Drs. in favour of their family members vide document Nos.29 of 2021, 30 of 2021, 31 of 2021, 32 of 2021 and 33 of 2021 dated 08.01.2021 and filed a suit for declaration vide O.S. No. 486 of 2021 seeking the documents as null and void and also filed injunction petition on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Shadnagar, Ranga Reddy District. 5.2. The petitioners also filed an application before the Revenue Authorities to reverse the revenue entries and cancel the sub divisions of survey numbers and show the extents in the Khata of the J.Drs. as then only the respondent-D.Hr. could book slot. For that, the petitioners filed application before the official respondents vide application/representation dated 06.10.2022. Aggrieved by the inaction of the officials, the respondent-plaintiff filed W.P. No. 39856 of 2022. The respondent-plaintiff filed an application/representation dated 06.10.2022 before the Revenue Officials to cancel the revenue entries of sham documents executed by the J.Drs. in favour of their family members pursuant to the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 486 of 2021 dated 04.07.2022. In the said writ petition a final order was passed by this court on 01.12.2022 directing the Superintendent appointed by the IX Additional and District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioners therein pursuant to the order passed in E.P. No. 1530 of 2022 in respect of the suit schedule property and prayed to dismiss the application with exemplary costs. 6. The respondent had also filed I.A. No. 02 of 2024 in I.A. No. 02 of 2023 to receive certain documents. 7. As those documents are the copies of the docket orders passed in E.P. No. 16 of 2020 renumbered as E.P. No. 1530 of 2022, copy of vakalat filed by the appellants-J.Drs. 6. The respondent had also filed I.A. No. 02 of 2024 in I.A. No. 02 of 2023 to receive certain documents. 7. As those documents are the copies of the docket orders passed in E.P. No. 16 of 2020 renumbered as E.P. No. 1530 of 2022, copy of vakalat filed by the appellants-J.Drs. in E.P. No. 1530 of 2022 dated 29.08.2023 and the copy of the petition filed by the appellants-J.Drs.’s along with affidavit E.A. No. 06 of 2024 in E.P. No. 1530 of 2022 dated 26.02.2024 under Order 21 Rule 106 read with Section 151 of C.P.C and the copy of orders in E.A. No. 06 of 2024 in E.P. No. 1530 of 2022 dated 04.04.2024 passed by the IX Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy, L.B. Nagar, copy of CMA No. 243 of 2024 against E.A. No. 06 of 2024 in E.P. No. 1530 of 2022 pending on the file of this Court, copy of police complaint given by the appellant No. 1-J.Dr. No. 1 dated 22.04.2024, copy of FIR No. 106 of 2024 dated 22.04.2024, copy of remand report dated 16.07.2024, copy of orders passed in Crl. M.P. No. 75 of 2024 dated 22.07.2024 (bail order), which were useful in deciding this application. Hence, I.A. No. 2 of 2024 is allowed. 8. Now the point for consideration is: (i) Whether there is sufficient cause to condone the delay of (1244/1287) days in filing the appeal? 9. POINT: As seen from the record, the respondent-plaintiff filed the Suit for specific performance vide O.S. No. 79 of 2015 and filed I.A. No. 768 of 2015 seeking ad-interim injunction. The petitioners herein who were shown as respondents-defendants therein filed their counter and after due contest the injunction application was allowed by order dated 30.03.2016 in favour of the respondent-plaintiff restraining the petitioners (respondents therein) from alienating the suit schedule property to third parties or creating any third party interest over the suit schedule property pending disposal of the main suit. 10. The record also would disclose that after framing of issues, the matter was posted for trial and the plaintiff filed an application to receive documents and the counsel for the plaintiff served copy of the petition along with the documents to the counsel for the defendants and the defendants counsel sought time for filing counter in the application. 11. 10. The record also would disclose that after framing of issues, the matter was posted for trial and the plaintiff filed an application to receive documents and the counsel for the plaintiff served copy of the petition along with the documents to the counsel for the defendants and the defendants counsel sought time for filing counter in the application. 11. On 20.08.2019 the counsel for defendants filed a memo before the court stating that the defendants were not in contact with them and also not giving instructions to pursue the suit. The defendants counsel had sent a notice to the defendants on 16.07.2019 through registered post with acknowledgment due and the same was served on them. Despite the same, the defendants did not turn up and in the said circumstances, the counsel for the defendants reported no instructions and sought permission to withdraw their vakalat. He also enclosed the copy of notice, postal receipts and acknowledgment cards along with the memo before the trial court. 12. In the memo it was specifically mentioned that the suit was adjourned several times for cross-examination of PW-1 and also for filing counter in interlocutory applications wherein the plaintiff was seeking leave of the court to file certain new documents in the suit. They made efforts to contact the defendants, but defendants failed to respond and give instructions. One of the counsel had informed the defendants about the date of adjournment and stage of the case well in advance, but they failed to turn up in the office for giving instructions. On 12.07.2019 in the morning one of the advocate contacted the defendants. Instead of giving proper answers or instructions or undertaking to come to court, the defendants bluntly told that they were going to engage some other advocate to represent both of them. In the said facts and circumstances of the case, it was very difficult for them to continue as their counsel. As such, asked the defendants to visit their office and to take their file and NOC from them by paying the remaining fee and that they would not be responsible for any damage that may be caused due to non representation of the case thereafter. 13. The said notice was sent by the counsel for the defendants therein in O.S. No. 79 of 2015. 13. The said notice was sent by the counsel for the defendants therein in O.S. No. 79 of 2015. The defendants received the same, but failed to instruct the counsel or to appear before the court. The certified copy of the docket order dated 20.08.2019 and the docket order dated 12.09.2019 in O.S. No. 79 of 2015 was filed by the learned counsel for the respondent along with the counter. 14. O.S. No. 79 of 2015 was decreed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge at Mahabubnagar in favour of the respondent-plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 27.09.2019. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that after passing the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 79 of 2015 dated 27.09.2019, the counsel for respondent-plaintiff (Mr.Avula Bal Raj) issued notice of intimation dated 11.11.2019 and communicated the same to appellants-defendants through RPAD and the said notice of intimation was received by the appellants-defendants-J.Drs. and enclosed the copy of notice and acknowledgment to the counter. 15. The respondent-plaintiff-D.Hr. filed E.P. No. 16 of 2020 on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge at Mahabubnagar for execution of the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 79 of 2015 dated 27.09.2019 and the executing court issued notice to the J.Drs- appellants. The JDR’s received the notice in E.P. No. 16 of 2020 through the court. The learned counsel for the respondent filed the copy of court bailiff’s service report and the notices sent along with the postal acknowledgments along with his counter. 16. After receiving the notices in E.P. No. 16 of 2020 in O.S. No. 79 of 2015, it was alleged by the learned counsel for the respondent that the judgment debtors-appellants i.e. Gundemoni Anjaneyulu and Gundemoni Mallesh illegally transferred the suit schedule property in favour of their family members to get away from decree and executed documents vide sale deed document No. 29 of 2021 and gift deeds vide documents Nos. 30 of 2021, 31 of 2021, 32 of 2021 and 33 of 2021 all of which were executed on 08.01.2021 by playing fraud, suppression of facts of court cases and misrepresentation on Government Officials, the JDR’s illegally executed the said documents. 17. 30 of 2021, 31 of 2021, 32 of 2021 and 33 of 2021 all of which were executed on 08.01.2021 by playing fraud, suppression of facts of court cases and misrepresentation on Government Officials, the JDR’s illegally executed the said documents. 17. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff-decree holder submitted that the respondent-plaintiff filed the suit for declaration vide O.S. No. 486 of 2021 seeking the said documents as null and void and also seeking consequential injunction on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Shadnagar, Ranga Reddy District, and enclosed the copy of the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 486 of 2021 dated 04.07.2022. The said suit was also decreed with costs declaring the registered sale deed documents as null and void and also granting consequential perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, and persons claiming through them from transacting in respect of plaint schedule A and B (a to e) properties. 18. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the respondent filed an application before the official respondents vide application/representation dated 06.10.2022 to reverse the revenue entries and to cancel the sub divisions of survey numbers and to show the extents in the khata of the appellants-J.Drs as they could book the slot and proceed with registration through court. Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent-plaintiff, they filed the W.P No. 39856 of 2022. The writ petition was disposed of on 01.12.2022, directing the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District to delete the names of respondent Nos.7 to 10 therein from Dharani Portal in respect of the aforesaid lands in Sy. No. 30 situated at Siddapur Village of Kothur Mandal on or before 06.10.2022 to enable the Superintendent appointed by the IX Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner therein pursuant to the orders passed in E.P. No. 1530 of 2022 in respect of the said property. 19. It was further submitted by the counsel for the respondent that the counsel for the appellants-J.Drs. filed vakalat on 29.08.2023 in E.P. No. 1530 of 2022 and after seven (07) months from the date of filing of vakalat, the appellants-J.Drs. filed a false affidavit before the court below and also filed an application under Order XXIX Rule 106, which was numbered as E.A. No. 06 of 2024 in E.P. No. 1530 of 2022. 20. filed vakalat on 29.08.2023 in E.P. No. 1530 of 2022 and after seven (07) months from the date of filing of vakalat, the appellants-J.Drs. filed a false affidavit before the court below and also filed an application under Order XXIX Rule 106, which was numbered as E.A. No. 06 of 2024 in E.P. No. 1530 of 2022. 20. He further submitted that the said application was dismissed on 04.04.2024 after due contest. He further submitted that the learned IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar dismissed E.A. No. 06 of 2024 in E.P. No. 1530 of 2022 by order dated 04.04.2024. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the appellants-J.Drs. filed C.M.A. No. 243 of 2024 and the said C.M.A. was pending adjudication before this court. 21. He further submitted that E.P. No. 1530 of 2022 was no more pending and the said execution petition was allowed on 07.01.2021 and the matter was posted for verification of draft sale deed. 22. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that on 22.04.2024, the appellant No. 1-J.Dr. No. 1 filed a false police complaint against the respondent-decree holder (Avula Bal Raj) to falsely implicate him in a criminal case taking advantage of the unfortunate demise of his younger son (G. Praveen) by committing suicide and Police Kothur, Cyberabad, registered a case vide F.I.R No. 106 of 2024 under Section 306 of IPC against the respondent-decree holder (Avula Bal Raj). 23. He further submitted that in the above complaint lodged before Police, Kothur, the complainant i.e. appellant No. 1 admitted that he and his brother G. Mallesh i.e. appellant No. 2 herein have entered into an agreement of sale and also agreed/admitted that they received advance of sale consideration of Rs.12,00,000/- but stated in the grounds of appeal in the present case that they did not execute the agreement of sale dated 01.03.2006 and the same was rank forgery and attempted to deny the agreement of sale deed. 24. He further submitted that on 16.07.2024, the Police Kothur arrested the respondent-D.Hr. (Avula Bal Raj) and sent him to judicial custody and the respondent-D.Hr. filed bail application vide Crl. M.P No. 75 of 2024 in Cr. 24. He further submitted that on 16.07.2024, the Police Kothur arrested the respondent-D.Hr. (Avula Bal Raj) and sent him to judicial custody and the respondent-D.Hr. filed bail application vide Crl. M.P No. 75 of 2024 in Cr. No. 106 of 2024 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B Nagar and the said court vide order dated 22.07.2024 granted bail and the respondent-decree holder was released on bail. He further submitted that without any reasonable cause the respondent-D.Hr. had to face the judicial remand. 25. The record would disclose that the petitioners-appellants-J.Drs. even after having entire knowledge of the proceedings, evaded to attend the court intentionally and deliberately and that they did not approach the court with clean hands and filed false affidavits before the court suppressing the material facts from this court. Except throwing the blame on his counsel, no sufficient cause was shown by the petitioners-appellants to condone the abnormal delay of (1244/1287) days in filing the appeal. 26. A Division Bench of this Court in Shakti Press Limited vs. Divya Shakti Paper Mills Private Limited, (2022) 0 Supreme (Telangana) 793 on considering the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom vs. Bhargavi Amma, (2008) 8 SCC 321 , N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123 , Maniben Devraj Shah vs. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, (2012) 5 SCC 157 , Ramlal vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 SC 361 , Collector (Land Acquisition) vs. Katiji, (1987) 2 SCC 107 held that: “15. From the precedent decisions, it is discernible that the Court is vested with power to condone the delay in filing an appeal if sufficient cause is shown by the litigant. While assessing the reasons for delay and the quantum of delay, Court should adopt liberal approach. It is not necessary that person should explain every day’s delay in literal sense. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice should be preserved. Any course of action adopted by the Court must serve the ends of justice. Once the Court is convinced that delay is properly explained and is non-deliberate, court must lean in favour of condoning the delay. 16. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice should be preserved. Any course of action adopted by the Court must serve the ends of justice. Once the Court is convinced that delay is properly explained and is non-deliberate, court must lean in favour of condoning the delay. 16. In exercising its discretion to condone delay, the Court is required to see whether delay is satisfactorily explained; there was no deliberate, wanton delay in prosecuting the litigation; litigant was not resorting to dilatory tactics; whether explanation lacks bona fides of litigant. The Court should also keep in mind the prejudice that may be caused to decree holder. The right accrued to decree holder by lapse of time-due to his own failure to prosecute legal remedy within reasonable time cannot be lightly ignored. When the delay is long, as in this case, the scrutiny is rigid and burden is heavy on the litigant to explain every aspect of his conduct and behaviour, fairly and freely during the interregnum. Such assertions should not be fanciful. 17. In matters concerning delay in filing an appeal against ex-parte decree, the amount of delay is not crucial but what is relevant is whether the appellant has shown ‘sufficient cause’ for the delay and whether appellant was bona fide in prosecuting the suit. As the shadows of delay enlarge the onus to explain the reasons to the satisfaction of the Court is more rigid. 19. On going through the record, even ignoring the communication dated 20.07.2018, the chronology of events preceding to passing ex-parte decree clearly point out that defendant himself to be blamed for being negligent in not prosecuting the suit. As a litigant, it is the primary duty of defendant to monitor the progress of the case and attend to proceedings before the Court. After the case is disposed of by trial Court, he should take steps to prefer Appeal immediately or within a reasonable time, whereas applicant wakes up leisurely at his convenience first to seek to set aside ex-parte decree and then at snails pace to file this Appeal. 20. In the facts of this case, it is clear that defendant has not shown ‘sufficient cause’ to condone the delay and that defendant was not prosecuting the suit and remedies bonafidely. 20. In the facts of this case, it is clear that defendant has not shown ‘sufficient cause’ to condone the delay and that defendant was not prosecuting the suit and remedies bonafidely. It is evident from his own averments in I.A. No. 1 of 2022 that he has been in constant touch with his Lawyer. Therefore, he cannot now try to blame the Lawyer to gain sympathy from this Court. By his own failings, he has allowed the rights crystallized in favour of the decree holder. He was negligent in prosecuting the suit and lacks bonafides in his claim for delay in filing this appeal.” 27. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, (2013) 12 SCC 649 summarized the principles to be applied while deciding the condonation of delay petition as under: “21. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be culled out are: 21.1. (i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justiceoriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. 21.2. (ii) The terms “sufficient cause” should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact- situation. 21.3. (iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis. 21.4. (iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of. 21.5. (v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact. 21.6. (vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice. 21.7. (vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsule the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play. 21.8. (viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. 21.7. (vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsule the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play. 21.8. (viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation. 21.9. (ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach. 21.10. (x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation. 21.11. (xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation. 21.12. (xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinized and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception. 21.13. (xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude. 22. To the aforesaid principles we may add some more guidelines taking note of the present day scenario. They are: 22.1. (a) An application for condonation of delay should be drafted with careful concern and not in a half hazard manner harbouring the notion that the courts are required to condone delay on the bedrock of the principle that adjudication of a lis on merits is seminal to justice dispensation system. 22.2. (b) An application for condonation of delay should not be dealt with in a routine manner on the base of individual philosophy which is basically subjective. 22.2. (b) An application for condonation of delay should not be dealt with in a routine manner on the base of individual philosophy which is basically subjective. 22.3 (c) Though no precise formula can be laid down regard being had to the concept of judicial discretion, yet a conscious effort for achieving consistency and collegiality of the adjudicatory system should be made as that is the ultimate institutional motto. 22.4. (d) The increasing tendency to perceive delay as a nonserious matter and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in a non-challant manner requires to be curbed, of course, within legal parameters.” 28. As the record would disclose that the petitioners-appellants-defendants-JDR’s had received summons in O.S. No. 79 of 2015 but failed to prosecute the matter with due diligence and his counsel also issued a notice to the petitioners, which was also received as per the acknowledgments filed by the counsel Sri C. Mahender Reddy and after disposal of the suit also the counsel for respondent-plaintiff issued notice of intimation dated 11.11.2019 and communicated the same to the appellants-defendants through RPAD and the copy of notice and acknowledgments were also filed along with the counter and the petitioners-appellants also received notices in E.P. No. 16 of 2020 and the copy of the court bailiff service report would disclose the same and instead of filing an application to set aside the ex-parte decree and prosecuting the E.P, the petitioners had transferred the suit schedule property in favour of their family members to avoid the decree and also received summons in O.S. No. 486 of 2021 and notices in W.P No. 39856 of 2022 and their application filed vide E.A No. 06 of 2024 in E.P. No. 1530 of 2022 was also dismissed on 04.04.2024 after due contest and they also preferred the C.M.A. No. 243 of 2024 and also lodged a criminal case against the respondent-plaintiff vide F.I.R. No. 106 of 2024 under Section 306 of IPC blaming the respondent as responsible for the death of his son committing suicide, all these would disclose that they were aware of the proceedings in O.S. No. 79 of 2015 but remained silent without prosecuting the matter diligently. The reasons assigned by the petitioners-appellants seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal are not satisfactory. They could not be considered as sufficient cause for condoning the delay. 29. The reasons assigned by the petitioners-appellants seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal are not satisfactory. They could not be considered as sufficient cause for condoning the delay. 29. In the result, I.A. No. 02 of 2023 is dismissed. Consequently, the Appeal Suit is rejected. No costs. 30. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.