1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 139 OF 2010 Pushpendrakumar Kesarilalji Sharma & Ors. Vs. Kalavatibai Wamanrao Pimple & Ors. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's Orders Shri U. N. Vyas Adv for applicant. CORAM: .R. M. SAVANT J. Dated: 14 th FEBRUARY, 2011. By this Second Appeal the appellant takes exception to the orders dated 29.10.2009 by which order the learned Principal District Judge Akola dismissed the application for condonation of delay filed by the appellant. 2] This is one more classic case of a judgment debtor trying to stall the execution of the decree obtained by the plaintiff. The appellants were the original defendants 2 and 3 in Special Civil Suit No. 37 of 1994 which was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,60,000/-. In the said suit the appellants were served with a writ of summons by paper 2 publication. The said suit came to be partly decreed and plaintiff was held to be entitled to a recovery of an amount of Rs. 90,000/- along with interest at 12% from the defendants jointly and severally. The appellants herein who as indicated above were defendants 2 and 3 purported to file an appeal challenging the said decree dated 01.03.1977 in the year 2009. In view of the fact that the proposed First Appeal to be filed by them was belated, the defendants 2 and 3 moved an application for condonation of delay without mentioning the number of days of delay in the application. However, the learned Principal District Judge considering the conspectus of dates arrived at a conclusion that though number of days has not been mentioned the delay was of 12 years. The learned Principal District Judge considering the reasons mentioned and more especially the fact that appeal was sought to be filed only when the execution proceedings had progressed substantially did not deem it fit to exercise the discretion in favour of the defendants 2 and 3. Application was accordingly dismissed. 3] The above Second Appeal had come up for admission before this Court on 06.04.2010 when this Court had directed the appellants to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- to show their bonafides. The said order has also not been abided by the appellants, therefore the intention motive of the appellants to file proceedings so as to see to it that the fruits of the decree in question are not enjoyed by the plaintiffs is writ large. In my view, this is a gross abuse of the process of the Courts. Considering the 3 impugned order and the facts as narrated above Second Appeal does not deserve to be entertained and is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE svkj 4 5 6