condonation of delay is concerned, the private Opposite Parties are duty bound to explain each date of delay in preferring the application before the 1st appellate court. Since they failed to do so the application filed by them under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay is devoid of merit and the learned court below should not have allowed the same by virtue of the impugned order dated 20.01.2023. In course of his argument, Mr.Bose, learned counsel for the Petitioner argued with regard to the locus standi of Opposite parties and the maintainability of the appeal at their instance. He also submitted that the will in dispute was executed by the father of the parties and accordingly, it was submitted that it was well within the jurisdiction to execute the will in favour of the persons he wants to bequeath such property. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner challenges the order dated 20.01.2023. 5. It is further contended by MrBose, learned counsel for the Petitioner that earlier the Petitioner had approached this Court in SAO No.15 of 2015 challenging the order dated 30.06.2015 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Rourkela in RFA No.04 of 2014. A coordinate bench of this Court considering the said application vide order dated 29.11.2022 disposed of the SAO by setting aside the order dated 19.06.2015 passed in RFA No.04 of 2014. Further, a direction was given to the 1st Appellate Court to take up the appeal afresh and decide the petition filed by the private respondents on the question of limitation as well as on the question of grant of leave. The coordinate bench further directed on consideration of both the Petitions by passing an appropriate order, the 1st appellate Court shall proceed with the appeal on merit by giving due opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Finally the coordinate bench keeping in view the fact that the appeal is of the year 2014, the 1st appellate
