1 ca8317.08 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8317 OF 2008 IN SECOND APPEAL (ST.) NO.13618 OF 2008 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Coram: Shrihri P. Davare, J. Date : 07.01.2011. 1. Heard Smt. Renuka Ghule, Advocate for the applicant and Shri Rahul Dhase for Respondent No.1. Shri C.V. Joshi, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 is absent. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicants for condonation of delay of 1107 days caused in filing the accompanying second appeal. 3. It is the contention of the applicants that the applicants-appellants have filed the 2 ca8317.08 accompanying second appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned II Adhoc Additional District Judge, Parbhani, on 31.3.2005 in Regular Civil Appeal No.29 of 2000. It is also the contention of the applicants that they applied for certified copy of the said judgment and decree on 18.7.2005 and same was delivered to the applicants on 25.7.2005. However, during the said period, there was rainy season and, therefore, they could not approach the Advocate. Moreover, it is further contention of the applicants that applicant No.1 Maruti, who is Karta of the family, was suffering from severe anemia and, therefore, could not approach his Advocate within the prescribed time which resulted in delay in filing accompanying second appeal. 4. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants were in 3 ca8317.08 financial difficulties which is also one of the causes for filing the accompanying second appeal at the belated stage. Accordingly, learned counsel for the applicant also urged that the delay caused in filing accompanying second appeal is not intentional, willful and deliberate and, therefore, same be condoned in the interest of justice. 5. Shri Rahul Dhase, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the present applicant, vehemently and submitted that the said application bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits and, therefore, same be rejected. It is also submitted by learned counsel for respondent that the applicants were not diligent in obtaining certified copies, as well as in filing the accompanying second appeal and no documentary proof has been annexed in support of the contentions raised in the application and, 4 ca8317.08 therefore, prayed that present application be dismissed. 6. On perusal of the contents of the present application and considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it is a matter of record that the judgment in R.C.A. No.29 of 2000 was rendered on 31.3.2005. However, the applicants applied for certified copy thereof after a period almost of 3-1/2 months i.e. on 18.7.2005 and they failed to explain the said delay. Moreover, delay caused in filing accompanying second appeal is inordinate and same is not explained by the applicants, properly. 7. Moreover, the applicants have also failed to produce any medical certificate to prove and establish that applicant No.1 Maruti, who is said to be the Karta of the family, was suffering from 5 ca8317.08 severe anemia at the relevant time and, therefore, said ground posed for delay also bears no substance. Besides that, financial difficulties cannot be considered as ground for approaching the Advocate at a belated stage, since the applicants could have approached the legal aid committee for seeking legal aid. 8. In the circumstances, present application bears no subtance and same is devoid of any merits and hence, same deserves to be rejected. 9. In the result, present application, which sans merits, stands dismissed and leave to file the appeal is refused. Court fee, if any, be refunded to the applicants as per rules. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) pnd/ca8317.08