IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA FA No.74 of 2009 1. DEVENDRA SINGH 2. Gobind Singh. 3.Anil Singh @ Anil Kumar Singh All are sons of late Ram Chandra Singh. 4. Rahul Kumar Singh (minor). 5. Rohit Kumar Singh(minor) Both are minor sons of Devendra Kr. Singh under the guardianship of their father Devendra Kr. Singh. All are resident of village Sato Ewati (Nai Kot), P.S. Ramgarh,District- Kaimur. - ---Defendants IInd set/Appellants. 6. Jagmuna Kuer widow of late Ramashraya Singh. 7. Narendra Singh s/o late Ramashraya Singh. 8. Amit Kumar Singh(minor) 9. Ankit Kumar Singh(minor) 10. Rakesh Kumar Singh (minor) All ( 8 to 10) are minor sons of Narendra Singh under the guardianship of their father Narendra Singh. All are residents of village Sato Ewati (Nai Kot) P.S. Ramgarh, District- Kaimur. --Defendants IIIrd set/Appellants. Versus 1. GAJA MOTI KUER widow of late Akshayabar Singh. 2. Shakuntala Kumari d/o late Akshayabar Singh. Both resident of village Sato Ewati (Nai Kut), P.S. Ramgarh,District- Kaimur. 3. Urmila Kuer d/o late Akshayabar Singh w/o late Dharmendra Kumar Singh, resident of village Bishunpur, P.S. Chandwak , P.O. Lewarua, District- Jaunpur ((U.P.). --Plaintiffs/Respondents-1st set. 4. Rama Shankar Singh s/o late Jagdish Ray. 5. Ranjit Singh s/o Rama Shankar Singh. 6. Digvijay Singh(minor) 7. Deepak Singh(minor) Both(6 and 17) are minor sons of Rama Shankar Singh under the guardianship of their father Rama Shankar Singh. All are residents of village Sato Ewati (Nai Kot),P.S. Ramgarh, District- Kaimur. --Defendant 1st set/Respondents IInd set. 8. Panmati Kuer w/o late Chhaila Bihari Singh. 9. Kunta Devi w/o Gulab Singh. Both are resident of village Laxmangarh, P.S. Chanhaniya, P.O. Ramgarh,District- Chandauli (U.P.). --Defendant IVth set/Respondent IIIrd set. 10. Muni Singh Kushwaha. 11. Bhagwat Singh Kushwaha. 12. Lal Bahadur Singh Kushwaha. 2 All are sons of late Chanar Kushwaha, resident of village Sato Ewati (Purani Kot) 13. Tribhuwan Singh. 14. Ramgrihi Singh. 15. Chhathu Singh. All are s/o Kedar Singh, resident of village Sato Ewati (Chaprang), P.S. Ramgarh,District- Kaimur. 16. Laxman Singh Yadav s/o Bhukhan Yadav, resident of village Sato Ewati (Purani Kot), P.S. Ramgarh, District- Kaimur. 17. Mangaru Choudhary. 18. Vijay Shankar Choudhary. Both are sons of Nagina Choudhary, resident of village and P.O. Dayadaha, P.S. Kochas,District- Rohtas. 19. Jagdish Choudhary s/o Banarashi Choudhary, resident of village Usraon, P.O. and P.S. Kochas,District- Rohtas (Sasaram). 20. Janardan Singh. 21. Hari Shankar Singh. 22. Bechan Singh. All sons of Bhrigu NathSingh, resident of village Sato Ewati (Purani Kot) P.S. Ramgarh, District- Kaimur. 23. Lalita Devi w/o Shiv Murat Yadav. resident of village Sato Ewati (Purani Kot) . 24. Thakur Pd. Kushwaha s/o Ghura Kushwaha, resident of village Sato Ewati (Purani Nai Kot) 25. Narsingh Singh s/o Shiv Tahal Singh. 26. Brij Bihari Singh s/o Butan Singh. 27.Ram Awadh Singh s/o Kapildeo Singh. 28.Bhagwati Devi w/o Rama Shankar Singh. All are residents of village Sato Ewati (Purani Nai Kot) P.S. Ramgarh,District- Kaimur. -- Defendants Vth set/Respondents IVth set. ----------- For the appellants: Mr. Jitendra Pd.Singh. For the respondents : M/s V.Nath,Ashok Kumar and Md. Walior Rahman 6 23.2.2010 This appeal arises from final decree in a Partition Suit against preliminary decree. The appellants have already preferred F.A.No. 160 of 2005, which is pending before this Court. The preliminary decree was dated 17.2.2005. The final decree is dated 24.7.2007 passed in Title Suit No. 121 of 1999 against which final decree, the present appeal has been filed on 21.5.2009. Thus, there is a 3 delay of over one and a half years in filing this appeal against the final decree. An application for condonation of delay has been filed. The main ground for condonation of delay is that the appellants, who were defendants in the court below, were unaware of the final decree preparation as they had not been noticed at any stage. A rejoinder has been filed on behalf of plaintiffs- respondents wherein it has been categorically stated that both in the final decree preparation stage as well as before the Executing Court these appellants or some of them had appeared. They had also appeared in mutation proceedings, which were negatived pursuant to final decree. Yet they had slept over the matter and now when execution proceedings have been carried out they have decided to challenge the final decree belatedly. Learned counsel for the appellants is not in a position to deny that at least one of the appellants was aware of the final decree having been prepared as he had appeared in the mutation proceeding. With regard to other proceedings, he states that the records wrongly recorded their appearance. In my view, the appellants or for that matter any litigatant is fully aware that once in partition suit a preliminary decree has been issued then if the parties are still contesting, final decree proceedings are taken up. Appellant was himself aggrieved by the preliminary decree and had filed an appeal. Ordinary prudence would have dictated the appellant to find out about the final decree proceedings if they were not noticed . They did nothing and after one 4 and a half years of the final decree and its execution they seek to file this appeal , which is hopelessly barred by limitation. In my view, the conduct of the appellants is not such that would persuade this Court to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The application for condonation of delay is rejected. The appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation. Singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)