IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA S.A.No.334 of 2000 ---- 1. Ramlakhan Mandal Son of Late Karti Mandal. 2. Most. Daulti Devi widow of Late Kartik Mandal. Both resident of Village Panchara P.S. Balrampur,District Katihar. --Defendants-Appellants-Appellants. Versus Smt.Sumitra Devi wife of Sree Om Prakash Singh, Resident of Village Panchara P.S. Balrampur, District-Katihar. -- Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent. ---- For the appellants : Mr. P.K.Jaipuriyar, Advocate For the respondent: M/s. S.K.Das, Ratna Das and Ashith Kumar,Advocates. ---- 10. 24.03.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This second appeal has been filed on behalf of the defendants-appellants-appellants challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title (Partition) Suit No.86 of 1996 (13/1997) which was filed by the sole plaintiff-respondent- respondent for partition of her 1/3rd share in Schedule A property and also for other ancillary reliefs. 4. The said suit for partition was decreed on contest with cost by the learned Subordinate Judge,III, Katihar vide his judgment and decree dated 22.01.1998. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendants filed Title Appeal No.19 of 1998 which was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Katihar vide his judgment and decree dated 23.06.2000 on the ground of limitation. - 2 - 5. From the materials on record it is quite apparent that there was a delay of more than seven months in the filing of Title Appeal, but no application was filed by the appellants in the Title Appeal for condoning the said delay. Furthermore, learned counsel for the appellants in the court below was adamant that since the appellants had utilised a wrong forum of miscellaneous case against the decree of the trial court, before the filing of title appeal, the title appeal was within time. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellants in the court below was clearly illegal and frivolous and thus no petition for condoning the delay having been filed, the learned court of appeal below had no option left, but to dismiss the title appeal on the ground of limitation. 5. In the said circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgment and decree of the learned court of appeal below, nor does it find any substantial question of law involved in the instant second appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed at this stage of hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)