her vague pleas of illness and other problems, the petitioner/appellant has not evinced interest to substantiate the abovesaid case by placing acceptable and reliable materials. As could be seen from the case projected by the petitioner/appellant, it is not her case that she was not aware of the judgment and decree passed in the first appeal. In such view of the matter, even if she had been affected by Jaundice, as such, nothing prevented her from sending her kith and kin to approach the Advocate to take further steps to challenge the judgment and decree passed in the first appeal and thereby prefer the second appeal in time. On the other hand, when it is seen that pursuant to the judgment and decree passed in the first appeal, the respondent had levied the execution proceedings in 2016 and when it is further seen that the petitioner/appellant had been participating in the abovesaid execution proceedings one way or the other and filing various applications to stifle the execution of the decree obtained by the respondent/plaintiff vehemently, in such view of the matter, it is found that the cause projected by the petitioner/appellant for the delay is found to be totally unjustified and unsustainable on all counts. Accordingly, it is seen that she is unable to place any material whatsoever to substantiate her case.
