possession over the suit property. It was further observed by the courts below that they had encroached upon the land, which belonged to the Panchayat Samiti. Indisputably, the first appeals filed by the appellants were dismissed on 10.05.2012. There is nothing on record which shows that any assurance was given to the appellants to regularize the land in question. The appellants had not mentioned as to who had given the assurance and when it was given. The respondents have categorically denied that any such assurance was given. Section 3 of the Limitation Act requires that the suits or proceedings instituted after the prescribed time of limitation shall be dismissed. However, in terms of Section 5, the discretion is vested in the court to admit an appeal or an application after the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation, if the appellants show "sufficient cause" for not preferring the appeal within the prescribed time. The explanation for the delay in the present case was neither reasonable nor satisfactory which is an essential pre-condition to condone the delay. The cause shown by the appellants can hardly be said to be a reasonable, satisfactory or even a proper explanation for seeking condonation of delay.
