1 C.A. 3324/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD C.A. NO. 3324/2010 IN S. A. ST. NO. 13960/2001 BHAGMAL LALSING CHHABRA DIED THROUGH L.RS. VS. SUNDARLAL GULAB KHARARE AND OTHERS Mr. Prasanna N. Kutti, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. A.M. Gholap, Advocate for respondents No. 3 to 6. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 13th July, 2011. PER COURT: 1. Heard. 2. This application seeks restoration of Second Appeal St. No. 13960/2001. 3. The facts leading to this application are quite peculiar. The present applicants’ father one Bhagmal had filed Second Appeal in year 2001. But in 2003, the appeal was dismissed for non removal of office objection. The appeal was never registered and therefore, it is identified with its stamp number. In the year 2004 Bhagmal died. In 2009, the present applicants, his sons learnt about the dismissal of appeal. They are now blaming the advocate, who failed to remove the office objection. The application is opposed on two grounds that the entire case appears to be incredible and should not be believed and that in the mean time, in 2008 the original respondents No.3 to 6 had sold away the suit property to a third party. The names of the purchasers are also mentioned in the affidavit in reply. Indeed, the delay is inordinate and the explanation given by the present applicants, the legal representatives of the original appellant, is not quite satisfactory. They have not mentioned name/s of the advocate/s 2 C.A. 3324/2010 who had filed the Second Appeal in year 2001 but mentioned a name of a designated Senior Counsel who could not have filed the appeal. But I am inclined to condone these lapses. After dismissal of the appeal for want of removal of office objection, the appellant died in 2004. This probably curtailed the meaningful progress in the matter. The original appellant could not have come to Aurangabad to enquire about the progress and probably his legal representatives were unaware of the filing of appeal etc.. The second important reason for reviving the second appeal is the fact that the claim of the original appellant, who was the plaintiff, was in respect of certain immoveable property and so the legal representatives of the appellant should be able to contest the appeal on merits. But the inordinate delay which clearly indicates their negligence, would entail burdening the applicants with heavy cost. ORDER On the present applicants’ paying cost of Rs.10,000/- to the respondents No.3 to 6, the Second Appeal St. No. 13960/2001 shall stand revived. The present applicants shall be added as appellants and shall take further steps within two weeks for making the appeal ready for hearing before admission. Mr. A.M. Gholap, Advocate waives service of notice for respondents No. 3 to 6. Issue notice to the other respondents returnable in four weeks. In view of the above order, Civil Application No.3325/2010 does not survive. [A.V. NIRGUDE,J.] ts k/2011/July13/ca3324.10