ORDER : MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J. 1. Heard Mr. S. Biswas, the learned counsel for the applicants.Also heard Ms. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. 2. This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been preferred by the applicants, namely, 1. Fazal Ali and 2. Md. Afjal Ali for condoning the delay of 829 days in preferring the connected Regular Second Appeal against the impugned judgment and decree dated 01.9.2017 passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Chirang, Kajalgaon in Title Appeal No. 13/2015. 3. By the impugned order, the Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decreed dated 13.03.2014 passed by the Court of learned Munsiff Bongaigaon in Title Suit No. 47/2007. 4. The said Title Suit was filed by the present applicants for declaration of right, title and interest and for recovery of possession by the judgement and decree dated 13.03.2024, the suit was decreed in favour of the present applicants. 5. However, by the impugned order, the First Appellate Court reversed the said judgement and decree and passed the decree in favour of the present respondents. 6. The learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants could not approach for filing the connected Regular Second Appeal within the prescribe period of limitation, as due to bonafied mistake of earlier engaged counsel they were not informed about the judgment and decree passed in Title Appeal No. 13/2015. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that it is only in the mid part of 2018 when the applicants, on their own, went to their engaged counsel, they came to know about the fate of the Title Appeal No.13/2015. 8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that thereafter, on 02.09.2019, the applicants applied for certified copy. 9. The learned counsel for the applicants have also submitted that in the meanwhile, the applicant no.1 was declared as a foreigner in FT Case No. 23/2017 by order dated 20.06.2018, passed in the said case. 10. 8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that thereafter, on 02.09.2019, the applicants applied for certified copy. 9. The learned counsel for the applicants have also submitted that in the meanwhile, the applicant no.1 was declared as a foreigner in FT Case No. 23/2017 by order dated 20.06.2018, passed in the said case. 10. The learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the applicant No.1, under the apprehension that he may be detained at the detention camp, had to take shelter in the residence of his relative and finally, in 2020, he filed a writ petition, challenging the order dated 20.06.2018, passed in FT Case No. 23/2017, wherein he got interim relief by order dated 29.05.2020, passed in Writ Petition No. 4692/2018. 11. The learned counsel for the applicants have submitted that as the applicant No.1 was declared as a foreigner, he had to undergo harassment and, therefore, he could not file the connected Regular Second Appeal within the period of limitation. 12. The learned counsel for the applicants have also submitted that the applicants are poor people not knowing the intricasies of the legal system and, therefore, a lenient view of the matter should be taken and the delay of 829 days in approaching this Court in filing the connected Regular Second Appeal should be condoned. 13. On the other hand, Ms. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondents, has vehemently opposed the prayer for condoning the delay of 829 days in this case. 14. She has submitted that the applicants have failed to sufficiently explain the cause of delay in the instant case. She has also submitted that the applicants have knowingly filed the connected Regular Second Appeal against a dead person, as respondent No. 2, namely, Nasimuddin Mandal, who had already expired during the pendency of the Title Appeal No. 13/2025 before the First Appellate Court. 15. The learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that before filing this Regular Second Appeal, the applicants had also referred an appeal against judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 12/2018, which was filed by the present respondents. 16. 15. The learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that before filing this Regular Second Appeal, the applicants had also referred an appeal against judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 12/2018, which was filed by the present respondents. 16. In the said Title Appeal, which was registered as Title Appeal No. 2/2022, the present applicants had made the legal heir of late Nasimuddin Mandal as party and therefore, she submits that the applicants knowingly filed the connected Regular Second Appeal against a dead person i.e., Late Nasimuddin Mandal. 17. The learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that though the applicants had admittedly filed an application for obtaining the certified copy of the judgment and decree passed in title appeal No.13/2015 on 20.09.2019, however, they have not properly explained as to why they could not prefer the Second Appeal within 02.09.2019 and 10.03.2022 when they had pursued other litigations during this period. 18. She also submits that the writ petition preferred by the applicants No.1 was filed on 17.07.2018, however, the applicants were negligent in approaching this Court in filing the Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 01.09.2017. 19. She also submits that the applicants though have stated that their engaged counsel were negligent in not informing them about the fate of the outcome of the Title Appeal No. 13/2015. However, there is no averment as to whether any action has been taken against the arraying counsel by filing any complaint against them. 20. In support of her submission, the learned counsel for the respondents has cited the following rulings: i. “ Rajneesh Kumar and Another Vs. Ved Prakash” reported in “ 2024 0 Supreme (SC) 1101.” ii. “ Balwant Singh Vs. Jagdish Singh ” reported in “ (2010) 8 SCC 685 .” 21. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides and have perused the materials available on record. 22. In the instant case, the delay in preferring the connected regular second appeal is of 829 days. The main grounds taken by the applicants in justifying the delay in approaching this Court in filing the connected regular second appeal is that they were not informed about the fate of the outcome of Title Appeal No. 13/2015 by their engaged counsel. 23. The main grounds taken by the applicants in justifying the delay in approaching this Court in filing the connected regular second appeal is that they were not informed about the fate of the outcome of Title Appeal No. 13/2015 by their engaged counsel. 23. It is also pleaded by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants could not approach this Court within the prescribed period of limitation, as the applicant No. 1 was declared as a Foreigner and he was busy in pursuing the legal remedy in respect of that matter. 24. Though it is a settled proposition of law that while assessing the presence of “sufficient cause” in considering an application for condonation of delay, a liberal approach has to be taken, however, this should not be understood that delay may be condoned on mere asking by the applicants. The applicants have to justify, as to what prevented them from approaching this Court, in preferring the connected regular second appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. 25. In the instant case, admittedly, the applicants came to know about the judgment and decree passed in Title Appeal No. 13/2015 in the mid-part of the year 2018. However, they applied for the certified copy after more than a year of coming to know about the judgment and decree passed in Title Appeal No. 13/2015, i.e., on 02.09.2019. In their application for condoning the delay, no justification has been shown as to what prevented them from applying for the certified copy. Immediately after coming to know about the judgment and decree, which is impugned in the connected appeal. This period of more than one year has not been explained in the application for condoning the delay. 26. Not to speak of sufficient cause, no cause whatsoever has been shown to justify the delay in applying for the certified copy after a lapse of more than 1 year by the applicants. 27. Furthermore even if we assume that applicant No. 1 was busy in pursuing his other legal remedies, however, there is no indication as to why the applicant No. 2 could not approach this Court within the period of limitation. 28. 27. Furthermore even if we assume that applicant No. 1 was busy in pursuing his other legal remedies, however, there is no indication as to why the applicant No. 2 could not approach this Court within the period of limitation. 28. Furthermore the applicants have taken the plea that their engaged counsel did not inform them, regarding the fate of Title Appeal No. 13/2015 within time, however, they have not even mentioned the name of the engaged counsel in the delay condonation application, and there is no whisper as to whether any complaint was lodged against the erring counsel by them. 29. For the reasons discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicants have failed to show that they were prevented by sufficient cause in preferring the connected regular second appeal within the period of limitation. 30. The prayer for condoning the delay of 829 days in preferring the connected regular second appeal is, therefore, rejected and this Interlocutory application is dismissed. 31. The connected regular second appeal is barred by limitation. 32. This Interlocutory application is accordingly disposed of.