1 C.A.NO. 4368/09. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4368 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL STAMP NO.2872 OF 2009. 1. Sk.Gulam Dastagir s/o Sk.Abdul & others. ...Applicants. VERSUS 1. Arun Madhavrao Dhokate & another. ...Respondents. ... Mr.S.M.Gunjal,Advocate h/f Mr.B.R.Survase, Advocate for the applicants. Mr.Ajit Kadethankar, Advocate for respondents. ... CORAM: A.V.NIRGUDE,J. Date : 29th September, 2009. COURT’S ORDER: 1. This application seeking condonation of delay 2 C.A.NO. 4368/09. of about 1196 days has a checkered history. The appellants were the original plaintiffs. They filed the suit in 1997 seeking declaration that the sale deed which the father of appellant Nos. 1 & 3 to 6 had executed in favour of the respondents in 1974 was null and void and for recovery of possession of the land, the respondents purchased through the sale deed. On 27.04.2001 this suit was dismissed on merits. But the appellants did not file the appeal within time and on 3rd of February, 2002 he filed an appeal before the First Appeal Court along with an application seeking condonation of delay. This application seeking condonation of delay came to be rejected on 16th of July, 2003 because of the appellants comitted default in attending the same. The appellants instead of filing a Second Appeal against the order rejecting his application seeking condonation of delay, filed an application for restoration before the First Appeal Court. Even this application was rejected on 29th July, 2005 after hearing the appellants. 2. The appellants then filed a writ petition before this Court which remained pending for almost three years and came to be dismissed on 20th August, 2008. 3. Thereafter, on 27th January, 2009 the present appeal was filed. The appellants seek condonation 3 C.A.NO. 4368/09. of delay on the ground that the appellants were bona fide pursuing the remedy by filing the Writ Petition. 4. The question is whether the appellants makes out a convincing case for condonation of delay? The answer is in negative. 5. Since the appellants' suit was dismissed, the conduct of the appellants was negligent and tardy. They did not file the appeal in time. They did not even file the Second Appeal in time. They wasted almost two years in pursuing the wrong remedy of 'restoration of the application seeking condonation of delay' that was caused in filing of the First Appeal. The appellants even delayed the filing of the writ petition which they filed in October, 2005 even though the earlier order was passed against them on 29th July, 2005. Even after dismissal of the writ petition which occurred on 20th August, 2008, the appellants did not show any alacrity. The appellants belatedly filed this appeal in the last week of January, 2009 almost five months after the writ petition was dismissed. The appellants have not explained the delay that is seen at all the stages of the proceedings. The appellants do not deserve any sympathy. So the application stands rejected. 4 C.A.NO. 4368/09. 6. In view of this, Second Appeal Stamp No. 2872/2009 does not survive. It is dismissed. (A.V.NIRGUDE,J.) lkp