ca16262.10 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16262 OF 2010 IN SECOND APPEAL (ST.) NO. 29489 OF 2010 Sow Chandrakalabai w/o Kashinath Shete ...Applicant Versus Shivanand s/o Narsing Morkhande and others ...Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16746 OF 2010 IN SECOND APPEAL (ST.) NO. 28467 OF 2010 Balaji s/o Vishwanath Achawale and another ...Applicants Versus Gangadhar s/o Shivappa Morkhande and others ...Respondents ..... Mr. M.L. Dharashive, advocate for the applicants Ms. M.D. Thube-Mhase, advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in C.A. No. 16262 of 2010 and for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in C.A. No. 16746 of 2010. ..... CORAM: A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED: 21ST SEPTEMBER, 2011 PER COURT:- 1 Both these applications seek condonation of delay of more than 2000 days caused in filing the second appeals. ca16262.10 -2- 2 Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the papers. 3 It is noticed that the judgment of the first appellate court was delivered some time in the year 2005 and the applicants said that they received the information from their advocate, who was looking after the matter in lower appellate court. They said that thereafter they instructed the advocate to file appeals against the impugned judgment and for which they have even paid him certain amounts required for filing appeals in this court. They said that, however, the concerned advocate had just ignored the instructions of the applicants and shirked his responsibility. They said that they again in the year 2006 obtained certified copy of the impugned judgments and thereafter in the year 2010, for the first time, they approached the advocate in Aurangabad for filing these appeals. They also said that they are poor and some time was also spent for collecting the necessary funds required for filing appeals. 4 The learned counsel for the concerned respondents vehemently opposed the civil applications. 5 The reasons mentioned above for seeking condonation of delay, are not at all convincing. The applicants did not explain as to why they ca16262.10 -3- did not approach to their advocate at Aurangabad soon after they received the certified copy of the impugned judgment in the year 2006. The reason that they did not have money is too vague and is unacceptable at all. Both the parties had an occasion to purchase the landed properties and because of such acquisition the cause of action for the present litigation had arisen. If the applicants were financially sound to purchase the land, it is rather unbelievable that they would not have sufficient funds to make financial arrangement for filing the appeals in this court. 6 In the result, both the applications seeking condonation of delay stand rejected. Consequently, registration of second appeals are refused. The applicants/appellants are entitled for refund of court fees, if any, in accordance with law. ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ) rlj/ ok