1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8297 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 164 OF 1985. Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders 1. Heard Advocate Shri V.C. Solshe for the applicant. 2. This is an application filed in 2009 for setting aside two orders passed by the Additional Registrar on 21.6.1995 and 30.10.1996. By order dated 21.6.1995, second appeal was dismissed as against respondent No.4 and by order dated 30.10.1996, the second appeal was dismissed against Respondent Nos. 5 to 7. 3. Present applicant-appellant- original defendant No.3 was required 2 to pay bhatta for issuance of notices to Respondent Nos. 3 to 7. The second appeal is filed in 1985. As per the order of the Additional Registrar, the applicant was to pay bhatta within two weeks and therefore the matter was adjourned. Thereafter, the learned Additional Registrar gave one more opportunity on his own and ultimately dismissed the second appeal against Respondent Nos. 3 to 7. 4. As per averment in paragraph 4 of the civil application, it was the duty of the Advocate on record to pay bhatta and he has not paid the same. This statement is wrong. It is the client who has to pay bhatta. It is another thing that the Advocate deposits bhatta from his own pocket sometimes. It is also said that the applicant-appellant changed his Advocate and thereafter learnt about dismissal of the second 3 appeal as against Respondent Nos. 3 to 7. The new Advocate is engaged in 2007 and the present application came to be filed on 19.1.2009. In other words, the applicant-appellant is wrongly blaming his previous Advocate and must not have ever enquired regarding the stage or progress of the appeal. 5. The delay in filing this civil application itself is of 4728 days. Delay not only is enormous, but the same is also not properly explained and for which Advocate on record is being wrongly blamed. Original suit was for partition and separate possession and the plaintiffs, who are Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein, have succeeded in getting decree for partition and separate possession. Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 are original defendant Nos. 1,2,4 and 5. 4 Plaintiffs and other defendants are denied right of partition and separate possession since 1976. 5. Not being satisfied with the reasons given, civil application stands rejected. Date:26/08/2009 (P.R.BORKAR, J.) pnd/ca8297.09