3.1. He fi"rrtlrcr. s, rnritted that ,.ruch aftcr the expi'y ,rl' lrrriti.tion lbr filing appeal, thc rcslxrnd, rn. No.l gilicd ttre suit propcrty to hii 5r.other. I).Vcnkat Narsimha I{crldy l,y executing Rcgistered Gilt Scttle rnent Dcecl dated 05.03.2019 r'idc doc rnrent No.2079 o12019 and his brother in turn soltl the said property in tu,o pe rtr; by registered sale dceds dirtetl 2 07 2019 bearing document No.(rl7l ,,f 2(ll9 to Sri ctrekolekar Krishna anc 1.,). registered sale deed dated l2.t)i.'.)-(l 9 bearing clocument No.6l72 ol 2()19 1r Sri chckolekar Lakshmi, who *,ere Iro.v in posscssio, of the propeny whict f rct was known to thepetitionerbythe lateoffilingofthepresentappeal ash:rrbtirinedcertihed copies of thc sarne u'hich wcrc filed with I.A.No. I of 2[20 No proper explanation rvas olfe rec by the petitioner - appellant [o corcloncr the delay of 1648 days in filrng th,: appeal except throwing blame on his <orrns,:I. There was inordinate delal in fi ing the appcal ancl there were no bona lr.es cn the part of thepetitioner - irppelirnt in filing the appeal. If the delay of l(4g days in filing the appeal was condr,n,:d, it would seriously prejudicr, the leipondent and his transferees and pra.rer I t: dismiss thc I.A.
