1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL ST. NO.16559 OF 2006 1 Shivaji s/o Ganoba Ghotale, age: 55 years, Occ: Agril., R/o Mudgad Ekogi, Tq.Nilanga, District Latur. 2 Bhagwan Vishwambhar Ghatole, age: 85 years, Occ: Agril., R/o as above. 3 Shankar s/o Saduba Ghatole, age: 80 years, Occ: Agril., R/o as above. 4 Venkat s/o Bajirao Ghatole, age: 52 years, Occ: Agril., R/o as above. 5 Manik s/o Bhanudas Ghatole, age: 45 years, Occ: Agril., R/o as above. 6 Babruvan s/o Vishwanath Rankhamb, age: 60 years, Occ: Agril., R/o as above. 7 Sitaram s/o Vishwanath Rankhamb, age: 48 years, Occ: Agril., R/o as above. Appellants Versus 2 1 Nivrati s/o Kishan Mule, age: 75 years, Occ: Agril., R/o Mudgad Ekogi, Tq.Nilanga, District Latur. 2 Gangubai w/o Kishan, died through L.R: 2A Balaji Kishan Mule, age: 45 years, Occ: Agri., R/o as above. 3 Champabai w/o Bhanudas Jadhav, age: 75 years, Occ: Household, R/o as above. 4 State of Maharashtra, through Collector, District Latur. 5 Tahsildar, Tq.Nilanga, District Latur. Respondents Mr.S.S.Halkude, advocate for applicants. Mr.D.K.Rajput, advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr.N.D.Kendre, advocate for Respondent No.2A. Respondent No.3 served. Mrs.R.K.Ladda, A.G.P. For Respondents No.4 & 5. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 26th August, 2009. P.C.: 1 Instant appeal is filed raising exception to the concurrent judgments delivered by the Courts below. 3 2 Appellants are original defendants no.4 to 10. Suit was presented by Respondent No.2-Gangabai, being Regular Civil Suit No. 09/1998 claiming declaration of ownership and for recovery of possession of the agricultural properties. The property is stated to be in possession of defendants no.1 and 2 and they are directed to deliver possession to the plaintiff in R.C.S. No.09/98. Defendants no.4 to 10 are impleaded as party to the suit. Concerned defendants did not file written statement nor participated in the proceedings of the suit. Other defendants, including defendant no.3 Nivratti contested the suit and after proper contest, decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff. 3 Defendant No.3 in R.C.S. No.09/98 – Nivratti s/o Madhavrao Rankhamb has also filed separate suit, being R.C.S. No.12/98 claiming decree of declaration of ownership and recovery of possession. He claimed that he is adopted son of Gangabai, plaintiff in R.C.S. No.09/98. Suit presented by Nivratti was also tried along with R.C.S. No.09/98, however, Regular Civil Suit No.12/98 came to be dismissed. There were appeals raising challenge to the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court presented by defendant Nivratti as well as defendant no.11 Champabai, and present appellants – defendants no.4 to 10. However, those appeals also came to be dismissed by a common judgment. 4 It is the case of appellants herein that they were prevented from filing their written statement and raising defence before the trial Court due to compelling circumstances. It is contended that the question involved in the appeal is in respect of immovable property and, therefore, 4 they be extended further opportunity and matter be remanded back to the trial Court. 5 I have perused the judgments delivered by both the Courts below and heard arguments advanced by learned Counsel for respective parties. 6 Suit was presented by Gangabai, being R.C.S. No.09/98 on 18.02.1994 and same came to be disposed of on 19.03.2004 i. e. almost after about ten years. There is nothing placed on record to demonstrate as to what steps defendants have taken in respect of prosecuting the suit. Defendants admittedly did not participate in the proceedings nor filed their written statement. Suit was allowed to proceed by them. In these circumstances, there is absolutely no reason for showing any indulgence in their favour after lapse of about 15 years. From the record, it appears that there was proper contest by defendant no.3 Nivratti, who had also filed a separate suit questioning entitlement of plaintiff Gangabai in respect of the suit property. Other defendants i. e. appellants herein, on their own, kept themselves away from the proceedings and did not prosecute the suit. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal. 7 Appeal, therefore, stands dismissed. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/ca1063606 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10636 OF 2006 IN SECOND APPEAL ST. NO.16559 OF 2006 Shivaji s/o Ganoba Ghotale and others Applicants Versus Nivrati s/o Kishan Mule & others Respondents Mr.S.S.Halkude, advocate for applicants. Mr.D.K.Rajput, advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr.N.D.Kendre, advocate for Respondent No.2A. Respondents No.3. Mrs.R.K.Ladda, A.G.P. For Respondents No. 4 & 5. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 26th August, 2009. P.C.: 1 This is an application filed by applicants seeking condonation of delay of 118 days occurred in presenting the Second Appeal. 2 Heard learned Counsel for respective parties. For the reasons stated in the application, application deserves to be allowed and same is accordingly allowed. Delay of 118 days occurred in presenting the appeal stands condoned. 3 Civil Application stands disposed of. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/sast1655906