IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.778 of 2009 1.RAMUDAR PANDEY, son of Ram Singar Pandey 2.Smt.Kalawati Devi, W/o Ramudar Pandey, both residents Of Mauza Mahamadpur Maksudpur Parsa, P.O.Mahmadpur Maksudpur Parsa, P.S. Sahebganj, Dist. Muzaffarpur ----Defendants 1st Set-------------------Appellants Versus 1.RAMAUTAR PRASAD CHOUDHARY, son of late Bhagwan Prasad Choudhary, resident of village Mauza Chakiya Bazar Sahebganj Road, Mohalla Maharaniganj, P.O.Bara Chakiya P.S. Chakia, Dist. East Champaran—plaintiff-respondent 2nd set 2.Krishna Prasad Choudhary son of late Bhagwan Prasad Choudhary, resident of village Mauza Chakiya Bazar Sahebganj Road, Mohalla Maharaniganj, P.O.Bara Chakiya P.S.Chakia, Dist. East Champaran—defendant 2nd set— ---Respondent 2nd Set 3.Prabha Devi, w/o late Murari Lal Choudhary {defendant No.3(Ka)} 4.Diraj Kumar Choudhary son of late Murari Lal Choudhary {defendant no.3 (Kha)] Both 3 and 4 are r/o village Mauza Chakiya Bazar Sahebganj Road, Mohalla Maharaniganj, P.O.Bara Chakiya P.S. Chakia, Dist. East Champaran—defendant 3rd set ---Respondent 3rd Set ----------- I.A.No.8501 of 2009 2. 12.1.2010 The interlocutory application has been filed to condone the delay of two years ten months 25 days in filing the Miscellaneous Appeal. By order dated 23.10.2006 under challenge the application of temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff-respondent 1st set was allowed by the Sub-Judge, IV, Motihari in Title Suit No. 290 of 2006. The said order was challenged by the defendant 2nd set-respondent 2nd set being the vendor of the present appellant in M.A.No.22/07 but not by the present appellant. Ultimately the said appeal was dismissed for default by order 2 dated 12.2.2008 for non-compliance of the order dated 22.1.2008 within the time allowed therein. It is admitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants had already appeared in the said M.A. No. 22/07 and it is stated that they became aware of the dismissal of the said miscellaneous appeal only on 8.12.2009 and thereafter the present appeal was filed on 21.12.2009. It is evident that although the order of injunction challenged herein directly affect the present appellants also apart from the vendor who had filed the miscellaneous appeal earlier yet the appellant did not come forward to assail the said order by filing miscellaneous appeal earlier and after a gross delay they have come forward. The ground taken regarding dismissal of earlier miscellaneous appeal in default cannot be considered as a good ground for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. The application for condonation of delay is, accordingly, fit to be rejected. I.A.No. 8501 of 2009 is, accordingly, dismissed. Consequently the miscellaneous appeal shall also stand dismissed. Spal/ (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) 3