6.Accordingly, it is seen that only after the properties had been brought for auction sale, the petitioners have chosen to prefer the first appeal with delay. In such view of the matter, it is seen that the petitioners are unable to place any acceptable and tenable cause for the delay. Very vaguly, they have averred that they had sent the papers to their counsel and could not follow their counsel in preferring the appeal in time in the matter due to the mental agony caused to them by the respondent. As abovenoted, the respondent had contended that the abovesaid cause given by the petitioners for the delay is completely vague and baseless. As rightly put forth by the respondent, as to when the petitioners had sent the papers to their counsel in preferring the appeal, as to what further steps they had taken to proceed further and why they had not endeavoured to follow their counsel and prefer the appeal in time, with reference to the same, absolutely, there is no averments put forth in the petition. It is thus found that as rightly contended by the respondent, only after the properties of the petitioners/appellants had been brought for auction sale, the petitioners had endeavoured to prefer the appeal and therefore, the delay had occurred.
