:1: pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3988 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 17321 OF 2008 1. Shri Maruti Damodar Waghmare and anr. ..Applicants Vs. 1. Shri Popat Nivrutti Gholap and ors. ..Respondents Mr. S.V. Sadavarte for applicants. Mr. A.B. Tajane for resopndent nos.1 to 5. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & D.G. KARNIK,JJ. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & D.G. KARNIK,JJ. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & D.G. KARNIK,JJ. Date : January 16, 2009. Date : January 16, 2009. Date : January 16, 2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Sadavarte the learned counsel for the applicants who have filed First Appeal under Stamp No. 17321 of 2008 but belatedly and hence this application for condonation of delay. :2: 2. As per the office note, the appeal is beyond time by 5 years and 223 days. The respondents have filed affidavit-in-reply and opposed this application. 3. We have noted that the applicants instituted Special Civil Suit No. 1228 of 1997 for specific performance of the contract in terms of the agreement for sale dated 29/6/1995 and in the alternate they had prayed for a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- from the defendants. It was stated in the suit that the total consideration in the agreement for sale was Rs.3,37,000/- out of which the applicants had paid an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and they were ready and willing to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,87,000/- within two months at the time of execution of the sale deed. 4. The trial court was pleased to decree the suit partly with proportionate costs as per the Judgment and Order dated 31/8/2002. The claim for specific performance of the agreement for sale (Sathe Khat) was :3: dismissed and defendants were directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the plaintiffs along with interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum. The plaintiffs thereafter filed Darkhast Application No. 185 of 2005 for execution of the decree and the defendants have already deposited an amount of Rs.4,44,000/- with the execution court. 5. Two grounds have been made out in support of the prayer for condonation of delay, namely, (a) illiteracy and (b) poor financial condition. 6. The record shows that the plaintiff no.1 had signed the complaint in English and, therefore, the ground of illiteracy really does not sustain. On the issue of poor financial condition, the plaintiffs went before the trial court with the offer of payment of Rs.1,87,000/- within two months and they had already paid an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. We have also noted that the court fees amount remitted with this appeal comes to a total of Rs.34,700/-. The filing of the :4: execution proceeding way back in 2005 for recovery of money by the plaintiffs also indicates that they had acquiesced with the decree passed by the trial court. 7. In these obtaining circumstances, we do not find any reason which could be called as good and sufficient reason to condone the delay. 8. Hence, the application is rejected. Consequently, registration of appeal is refused. (D.G. Karnik,J.) (D.G. Karnik,J.) (D.G. Karnik,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)