1 1. 1938/2003; FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.400/1993 WITH CA NOS.5510/2001; 4983/2002; 7287/2002; 1938/2003. (Sk.Pashamiya s/o Babamiya Shaikh (died through L.Rs.) and Ors. Vs. Sk.Ibrahim Sk.Mohammed and Ors. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.AG Talhar Adv. for appellants; Ms.Fatima Kazi, Adv. h/for Mr.SS Kazi, Adv. for R.No.3 ________ CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 30 th March, 2010. ... 1) Heard. 2) The dismissal of First Appeal made the plaintiff to prosecute in Second Appeal, questioning the findings of first Appellate Court. 3) CA No.5510/2001 is moved by the appellant, seeking restoration of the Second Appeal, as it was dismissed on 21.9.1994. It is canvassed, petitioner no.1-A is a widow and she has three minor children. Since there was no male member in the family, petitioner no.1-A could not keep track while petitioner no.2 is old and infirm. 4) It is not that attendance of the appellant, which was warranted at the time of arguing the matter for admission 2 was once. The persistent absence has added to the miserable situation and the Court could not be expected to remain with folded hands to wait either for the appellant or the counsel concerned. The Counsel, as a bona fide approach, even tried, by letter to the appellant, however, the appellant did not pay any heed to such letter; did not prosecute the matter. It was only after the appellant felt the heat of so-called threats of eviction, she probably approached the Counsel. The delay demonstrated the laxity and remissness, without any substance to condone the same; no sufficiency of reasons; the grounds for restoration of the Second Appeal also do not merit, the Civil application No.5510/2001 dismissed. 5) There is delay of 2497 days in filing CA No.7287/2002 to bring the legal representatives of deceased Respondent no.1 on record. It is a matter of record between the parties, they are known to each other, residing in the close proximity, consequently death of Respondent no.1 could not be lost track by the appellant. The inordinate delay in moving the application for setting aside the abatement and bringing the legal representatives of deceased Respondent No.1 on record, being not 3 properly explained, the very application (CA No.7287/2002) is dismissed. 6) In view of the dismissal of the CA for restoration of the Second Appeal, rest of the CAs (CA No.1938/2003, 4983/2002) do not survive, they are also dismissed. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/ca7287.02