1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12294 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 20507 OF 2008 Ambadas Sakharam Kale & another ....Applicants. Versus Krishna Bhalchandra Rudrawar ....Respondent. Shri. R.N. Bharaswadkar, Advocate for the applicant. Shri. Vivek Bhavthankar, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 25th August 2009 ORAL ORDER: 1. This is an application seeking condonation of 446 days delay caused in filing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 27th of April 2007, passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Parbhani in Special Civil Suit No. 77/2004. The applicants are the original defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in the said suit. 2. By the instant application, the applicants have stated that the advocate, appearing for them in the lower Court, has not communicated regarding the decision of the case rendered on 27.4.2007. It has further been alleged that the advocate subsequently advised that there is no 2 need to prefer an appeal and the judgment and decree is of no use or consequence so far as the applicants are concerned. The applicants alleged that they believe their counsel in good faith and kept mum and did not prefer the appeal. However, when on 9th of March 2008, the respondent/original plaintiff came along with 2-3 persons on suit site and forcibly entered the premises and threatened the applicants of dispossession and therefore, they came to know that a decree has been passed in the Special Civil Suit No. 77/2004. The delay of 446 days caused in preferring the appeal which, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, is for the sufficient cause, which is made out in the application and therefore, the same is required to be condoned. 3. The learned counsel for the original plaintiff, on the other hand, disputed the averments made in the application by filing affidavit. The learned counsel for the respondent/original plaintiff urged that no sufficient cause is made out for condonation of delay. The application is totally vague and lacks material facts and particulars. The learned counsel contended that the material dates are not given and after filing written statement what steps the appellant did take to contact the counsel and to know the fate of the litigation, has also not been stated in the application. According to the learned counsel, there is no sufficient cause made out and the application deserves to be dismissed. 4. After going through the contents of the application and the 3 affidavit in reply filed by the respondent, it is apparent that after filing of written statement, the appellants have not taken any steps. The plaintiffs have led evidence, documentary as well as oral and the Trial Court on the basis of the evidence available on record, recorded a finding that the plaintiffs have proved their title over the suit property and they are in possession of the suit property and hence, the decree was passed in their favour. The stand taken in the application that on 9.3.2008 for the first time the appellants came to know about the decision, appears to be not bona fide and genuine. The applicants appeared to be total negligent in prosecuting the case and have allowed to lapse the period of limitation. In view of this, in my opinion, there is no case made out for condonation of delay. The application is therefore dismissed. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] ssc/ca12294.08