1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2245 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1081 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2246 OF 2007 In FIRST APPEAL (ST.)NO.7916 OF 2007 Ramchandra Vitthal Mahadik ………… Applicant Vadgaon, Tal. Hatkanangale, Dist. Kolhapur Vs. Sau. Shahanaj Tajuddin Patharavat …... Respondent Ichalkaranji. Mr. Vaibhav A. Sugdare i/by Mr. Nilesh Patil, Advocate for Applicant Mr.V.B. Rajure, Advocate for respondent. CORAM : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. Date : 8th May, 2009 P.C. : 1. This application is filed for condonation of 875 days delay in challenging judgment and decree dated 3rd August 2002. The application is opposed by the respondent, the decree holder. 2. The respondent had filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale of the suit property executed by the appellant. After the summons in the suit was served, the appellant filed his written statement to contest the suit. Thereafter he did not appear in the Court at all and the suit came to be decreed against the appellant. At paragraph 6 of the present application, the applicant 2 states that on 1st May 2000, he along with his family left his home at Vadgaon and shifted to a place called Kankumbi, Khanapur, Taluka, District Belgaum, Karnataka State. He did not return to Vadgaon until 4th May 2004. He claims to have become aware of the impugned judgment and decree only in October 2006. Thereafter he applied for certified copies of the judgment and decree to enable him to file the present appeal proceedings. He also states at paragraph 8 of the application that he was unable to approach this court early due to financial crises and agricultural work. 3. Mr. Sugdare, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a poor agriculturist. He failed to attend to the court proceedings and from taking further steps in the matter on account of poverty. Perusal of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent shows that the applicant has suppressed material information from the Court while filing the present application. It is disclosed in the affidavit-in-reply that the applicant had sold the suit property to a third person i.e. Bhagwan Vithoba Mane. This third person has filed an application at Exhibit 35 objecting the execution of the decree. It appears that Bhagwan Vithoba Mane has further sold half of the suit property to one Bapu Mane by registered sale-deed. The applicant has not filed affidavit-in-rejoinder to refute these averments in the affidavit in reply. Therefore the same must be accepted as correct. In view of the sale of the suit property, the applicant can have no interest and locus standi in preferring the present appeal. 3 4. Even if the averments made by respondent, in the reply as regards sale of the suit property to the third person are to be ignored and the application is to be considered solely on it’s merits, this Court is not satisfied that the applicant has made out any case explaining the delay. Admittedly the applicant was aware of the Court proceedings, since he filed written statement in the suit. During the pendency of the suit, he shifted his residence from Kankumbi, Khanapur, Taluka, District Belgaum, Karnataka State. Thereafter he did not attend to the matter. Thus the inaction on the part of the applicant in not attending to the matter was deliberate and conscious. Hence, the Civil Application is rejected. 5. In view of dismissal of the application for condonation of delay, the First Appeal does not survive, the same is accordingly dismissed. The Civil Applications No.1081 of 2009 and Civil Application No.2246 of 2007 also do not survive, the same are accordingly dismissed. ( Smt.R.P. SondurBaldota, J.)