IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Appeal No.266 of 2007 The Commandant 75 R.C.C.(G.R.E.F), C/o 56 A.P.O., through Lt. Karnal Jaswant Singh, son of Shri S. Kulwant Singh, Officer Commanding, District Chamoli (Utrakhand). ... ... Appellant. Versus 1. Smt.Rajo Devi, Widow of Nageshwar Sah. 2. Chandan Sah, son of late Nageshwar Sah. 3. Smt. Gautam Devi widow of late Nageshwar Sah. 4. Meera Devi, D/o late Nageshwar Sah. 5. Ranjeet Sah 6. Manoj Sah, Both sons of late Nageshwar Sah. 7. Mamta Kumari, D/o late Nageshwar Sah. 8. Sitarjan Kumar, son of late Nageshwar Sah., All resident of village Sugauli, Station Chowk, P.O. and P.S. Sugauli, District East Champaran (Motihari). ... ... Respondents. ---------------------------------- 14. 19.9.2011. Heard Shri Akhouri Vipin Bihari Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. Prem Sheela Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the respondents on Interlocutory Application i.e. I.A. No.2533 of 2011 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The present appeal has been filed after expiry of three years from the date of issuance of certificate under the Indian Succession Act. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in paragraphs 3 to 12, he has given explanation for delay in approaching the court. From the petition, it is evident that no plausible reason has been assigned 2 by the appellant for approaching this Court. The impugned order is dated 27.3.2004. The appellant has not even bothered to mention in limitation petition as to when Succession Certificate was noticed by the appellant. Only certain dates have been enumerated in the limitation petition, which is self explanatory. Even thereafter, in paragraph- 6, the appellant has admitted that in the month of May,2006, they had taken steps for obtaining legal opinion. On 12.6.2006, opinion was obtained for filing appeal without any explanation. In paragraph-9, it has further been stated that on 11th November,2006, all the papers were sent to the Government Advocate. Draft of memo of appeal was again sent on 28.2.2007 by learned Advocate for its approval and there has been no explanation as to why the appeal was filed in the month of July,2007. In view of absence of any plausible explanation for approaching the court at such belated stage, the court is of the opinion that the appeal can be rejected on the ground of limitation itself. 3 Accordingly, the appeal on the ground of limitation stands dismissed. N.H./ ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)