1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.865 OF 2009 Shankar s/o Parasram Uphad, age: 40 years, Occ: Agril., R/o Narsi (N), Tq. District Hingoli. Appellant Versus 1 Ismail s/o Kareemshah, age: 52 years, Occ: Labour, R/o Narsi (N), Tq. District Hingoli. 2 Kareemshah s/o Budhanshah (Died through his L.Rs:) 2-A Azizabee w/o Kareemshah, age: 85 years, Occ: Household; 2-B Chotushah s/o Kareemshah, age: 60 years, Occ: Agri., 2-C Mehetabshah s/o Kareemshah, age: 58 years, Occ: Agril.; 2-D Janeeshah s/o Kareemshah, age: 55 years, Occ: Agri., No.2-A to 2-D, All R/o Narsi (N), Tq.-District Hingoli. 3 Mohd.Sharif s/o Mohd. Ibrahim (Died through his L.Rs:) 3-A Smt.Hajeenabee w/o Md.Sharif, age: 70 years, Occ: Household, R/o Narsi (N), Tq.District Hingoli. 3-B Mohd.Moise Mohd.Sharif s/o Mohd. Sharif, age: 45 years, 2 Occ:Labour; 3-C Mohd. Sayeed Mohd.Sharif s/o Mohd.Sharif, age: 40 years, Occ: Labour; 3-D Mohd. Vaheed Mohd.Sharif s/o Mohd.Sharif, age: 35 years, Occ: Labour; 3-E Mohd.Ferroz Mohd. Sharif s/o Mohd.Sharif, age: 33 years, Occ: Labour; 3-F Mohd.Imrroz Mohd.Sharif s/o Mohd.Sharif, age: 30 years, Occ: Labour; 3-G Mohd. Zahir Mohd.Sharif s/o Mohd. Sharif, age: 28 years, Occ: Labour; 3-H Mohd. Abrroz Mohd.Sharif s/o Mohd.Sharif, age: 25 years, Occ: Labour; No.3-A to 3-H All R/o Narsi (N), Tq. District Hingoli. 4 Sk. Majmeen s/o Sk.Roshan, age: 42 years, Occ: Agri., Secretary-Burial Ground and Ashrukhana Committee, Narsi (N), Tq.-District Hingoli. Respondents Mr.N.N.Chitlange, advocate for the appellant. Mr.Abdul Aziz, advocate for Respondents No.1, 2-B to 2-D & 4. Ms.Rashmi P. Gour, advocate for Respondents No.3-A, 3-B, 3-D to 3H. Mr.H.I.Pathan, advocate for Respondent No.4. 3 CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 04 th February, 2010. P.C.: 1 An application tendered by appellant seeking condonation of delay of more than eight years in presenting appeal before the first appellate Court came to be rejected by the first appellate Court, which order is subject matter of challenge in this Second Appeal. 2 Appellant is the person who has purchased disputed property from legal heirs of original plaintiff Ramabai after litigation between contesting parties was concluded. One Ramabai was mother of predecessor-in-title of the appellant from whom he has purchased an area to the extent of 64 ares disputed land. Ramabai, during her life time, had instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 47 of 1991 claiming possession of encroached portion as well as for perpetual injunction. After proper contest between contesting parties, suit presented by mother of predecessor-in-title of appellant came to be dismissed on 09.08.2000. It is stated that mother of predecessor-in-title of appellant died in the year 2002. After her demise, appellant has purchased the property on 22.11.2006 from legal heirs of deceased Ramabai. 3 It is the contention of appellant that he stepped into shoes of original plaintiff by virtue of purchase effected by him and as such, is entitled to continue the litigation initiated by mother of predecessor-in-title of appellant. There occurs gross delay of more than eight years in presenting the First Appeal. It is the contention of appellant that while effecting purchase, he has perused documentary record in the form of 7/12 extracts and other documents. Names of heirs of deceased Ramabai were recorded in 7/12 extracts and as such, he has purchased the property. It is the contention of appellant that somewhere in 2007, name of Wakf Board was directed to be recorded in respect of 30 ares of 4 land out of the area alleged to have been purchased by the appellant, which gave cause of action for presenting the appeal. It is contended that only after issuance of direction for mutating some portion of suit land in the name of Wakf Board by the revenue officials, appellant felt need to contest the litigation which was initiated by Ramabai during her life time. In these premises, appellant prays for condonation of delay and urges that an opportunity be given for contesting the litigation. 4 I have perused the impugned order passed by first appellate Court and heard arguments advanced by Shri Chitlange, learned Counsel for appellant and by learned Counsel for respective respondents. 5 It is to be noted that appellant has purchased the property years after demise of original plaintiff Ramabai. Appellant has purchased the property with all risks inherent in making such purchase. There is inordinate delay, that has occurred, in approaching the first appellate Court. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that reasons recorded by first appellate Court while refusing to condone delay are logical and proper and do not call for any interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal. 6 Appeal, therefore, stands dismissed. Pending Civil Applications do not survive and stand disposed of accordingly. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/sa86509