1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 384 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 384 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 384 2008 IN SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO. 4083 OF 2008 Macchindra Nana Ingle ... Applicant Vs. Ramchandra Dnyanu Ingale & Ors. Respondents Mr. S.S.Shah, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. Dilip Bodke, Advocate, for the respondents. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATED: 24th October, 2008. DATED: 24th October, 2008. DATED: 24th October, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This is an Application for condonation of delay of 3 years and 20 days in filing the Second Appeal against dismissal of Civil Appeal No.220 of 1996 on 2 24.1.2005. The father of the applicant had filed a suit for perpetual injunction on the ground that the suit property was a self-acquired property. That suit was dismissed in 1996. Appeal was filed by the appellant. That appeal was also dismissed on 24.1.2005. According to the appellant, the Advocate appearing in the appellate Court had not informed him about the disposal of the case. For the first time in October 2007, he had been to the District Court for some work and there he came to know about the dismissal of the appeal. Due to financial difficulty and lack of legal knowledge, the delay was cause. 3. However, the respondent No.1 - Ramchandra has contested the application by his affidavit wherein he has pointed out that after dismissal of the appeal filed by the present applicant, the respondent No.1 had made an application to the Revenue Authority and accordingly the mutation entry was taken in the Record of Rights. The applicant had also filed RTS Appeal No.116 of 2005 which was decided on 10.2.2006. Against the Judgment in that matter, the respondent No.1 had filed RTS Appeal No.20 of 2006. That appeal was decided on 30.6.2006. In both the RTS Appeals, there was a reference to the dismissal of the appeal of the present applicant by the District Court. Therefore, the respondent No.1 contends 3 that, the contention of the applicant that he was not aware about the dismissal of the appeal till October 2007 is not proved. 4. Taking into consideration the facts noted above, it appears that the applicant has not given true reasons for delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, I find that the applicant has failed to show that there were sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeal. It is material to note that there is concurrent finding of facts by both the Courts below. In such circumstances, I do not see any reason to condone the delay. 5. Therefore, the Application stands dismissed. 6. Second Appeal (Stamp) No.4083 of 2008 also stands disposed of. (J.H.iBHATIA,J.) (J.H.iBHATIA,J.) (J.H.iBHATIA,J.)