ORDER : LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J. This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order dated 13.06.2023 in I.A.No.221 of 2021 in O.S.No.60 of 2014 passed by the Senior Civil Judge at Shadnagar. 2. Heard Sri Bethi Venkateshwarlu, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Shaik Khaja Pasha, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 5 and 9. 3. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs and the respondents herein are the defendants before the trial Court. For convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. 4. Brief facts relevant for adjudication of the present Civil Revision Petition are that plaintiffs filed suit for partition and delivery of possession in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.12.12 guntas in Sy.No.357 of Alwal village and Acs.11.17 guntas in Sy.No.365 of Keshampet village; that one late Abdul Kareem has got two wives, i.e., Jainabbi is the first wife and Burahan Bee is the second wife. 5. It is averred that plaintiffs are the legal heirs of late Khaja Bee, who is the daughter of Buran Bee, who is the second wife of Abdul Kareem; that Abdul Raheem is the son of first wife of Jainabbi; that name of the Abdul Raheem was recorded in all the revenue records as exclusive owner of suit lands; that during the life time of Abdul Raheem, he declared Hiba orally in favour of his step sister Burhan Bee and her daughter late Khaja Bee to give half share in the suit lands and subsequently, through written document dated 15.02.1995 assured and agreed to give half share in the suit lands as per Hiba made by the original pattadar Abdul Raheem; that the defendants used to pay food grains to the plaintiffs whenever demanded by getting the suit lands cultivate through others; that on account of increase in rates of lands, the defendants are proposing to sell the suit lands. Hence, the suit. 6. It is further averred that initially, the plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.101 of 2007 on the file of Addl. Hence, the suit. 6. It is further averred that initially, the plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.101 of 2007 on the file of Addl. Senior Civil Judge at Mahabubnagar for partition of the suit lands; that defendants entered appearance and filed written statement; that after framing of issues, trial commenced and P.W.1 was examined in chief and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked and matter was adjourned to 07.11.2013 for his cross- examination and thereafter, the matter was adjourned for further evidence; that on administrative grounds, said suit was transferred to the court of Senior Civil Judge at Shadnagar on 11.04.2014 and the suit was renumbered as O.S.No.60 of 2014. 7. It is further averred that during the pendency of the suit, plaintiff No.2 died on 07.02.2015 and since there are no male persons in their family, they could not prosecute the suit and thereafter, plaintiff No.1 also died on 09.03.2015; that during October, 2021, through some of their relatives, the plaintiffs have learnt that about pendency of the suit before the court; that immediately, they approached the Court and enquired in the section and they were informed that the above suit was dismissed for default on 14.09.2015 itself. It is averred that plaintiffs are not aware of the above said suit or its dismissal on 14.09.2015 and nor they were informed by the Advocate on record and that immediately, after knowing the dismissal of the suit for default, they approached the vide Court by filing an application I.A.No.221 of 2021 for condonation of 2237 days in filing the application for restoration of the suit. The trial Court vide order dated 13.06.2023, dismissed the said application. Aggrieved thereby, the present Revision Petition is filed. 8. The trial Court vide order dated 13.06.2023, dismissed the said application. Aggrieved thereby, the present Revision Petition is filed. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs contended that due to the death of the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and since no male persons were there in the family of the plaintiffs, they could not approach the trial Court and even their counsel did not inform about dismissal of the suit for default and immediately, after knowing the same, they approached the court by filing restoration petition along with an application for condonation of delay by explaining the valid reasons for delay of 2237 days however, the trial Court without considering the same, erroneously dismissed the said application on the ground that huge delay cannot be condoned simply on saying that petitioners had no knowledge about the pending suit, which is contrary to well settled principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and as such, the findings of the trial Court are not sustainable in the eye of law. He further submitted that a lenient view may be taken while adjudicating the delay application, since the rights of petitioners/plaintiffs in immovable property would be affected if the delay is not condoned and finally, prayed to allow the revision petition. 9. Learned counsel for respondents/defendants had contended that petitioners filed the restoration petition along with condonation application with an abnormal delay of 2237 days and that the application filed by the petitioners is devoid of any merit and no proper reasons are assigned for condonation of huge delay in filing the application and the trial Court has rightly dismissed I.A.No.221 of 2021 and prayed to dismiss the revision petition. 10. With regard to the issue of condonation of delay, it is trite to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Basawaraj and another v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, 2013 (14) SCC 81 , wherein it is held as under: “11. The expression “sufficient cause” should be given a liberal interpretation to ensure that substantial justice is done, but only so long as negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides cannot be imputed to the party concerned, whether or not sufficient cause has been furnished, can be decided on the facts of a particular case and no straitjacket formula is possible. The expression “sufficient cause” should be given a liberal interpretation to ensure that substantial justice is done, but only so long as negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides cannot be imputed to the party concerned, whether or not sufficient cause has been furnished, can be decided on the facts of a particular case and no straitjacket formula is possible. (Vide Madanlal v. Shyamlal [ (2002) 1 SCC 535 : AIR 2002 SC 100 ] and Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao [ (2002) 3 SCC 195 : AIR 2002 SC 1201 ].) 12 . It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. “A result flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation.” The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. The legal maxim dura lex sed lex which means “the law is hard but it is the law”, stands attracted in such a situation. It has consistently been held that, “inconvenience is not” a decisive factor to be considered while interpreting a statute. xxx 15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the “sufficient cause” which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this Court in regard to the condonation of delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this Court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature.” 11. In Postmaster General and others vs. Living Media India Limited and another, (2012) 3 SCC 563 , Hon’ble Apex Court having considered catena of decisions, including Pundlik Jalam Patil (dead) by LRs. Vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project and another, (2008) 17 SC 448 , held as hereunder:- “17……. The evidence on record suggests neglect of its own right for long time in preferring appeals. The court cannot enquire into belated and stale claims on the ground of equity. Delay defeats equity. The court helps those who are vigilant and “do not slumber over their rights”. 12. In Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) rep. by Executive Engineer vs. Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Private Limited, (2021) 6 SCC 460 , Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “63. ...... In a fit case in which a party has otherwise acted bona fide and not in a negligent manner, a short delay beyond such period can, in the discretion of the court, be condoned, always bearing in mind that the other side of the picture is that the opposite party may have acquired both in equity and justice, what may now be lost by the first party’s inaction, negligence or laches.” 13. Perusal of the record would disclose that the suit was dismissed for default on 14.09.2015, but the petitioners did not take steps immediately to restore the suit, which clearly indicate that petitioners were not diligent in prosecuting the suit. Admittedly, petitioners filed application for restoration of the suit along with application under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 2237 days in filing restoration petition. Further, petitioners failed to show cogent and plausible reasons for condoning inordinate delay of 2237 days. Admittedly, petitioners filed application for restoration of the suit along with application under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 2237 days in filing restoration petition. Further, petitioners failed to show cogent and plausible reasons for condoning inordinate delay of 2237 days. As rightly observed by the trial Court in the impugned order, the law assists only those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights and the Court presumes that every party is aware of law and hence, a party cannot claim ignorance of law as a defence to escape liability. 14. In view of the above discussion and legal position, this Court is of the considered opinion that the reasons offered by the petitioners for condonation of inordinate delay does not inspire the confidence of this Court since no plausible explanation has been offered for huge inordinate delay of 2237 days in filing application and no sufficient cause has been shown for such delay and hence, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. 15. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 16. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.