(1) SA. 15377.2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL (ST.) NO. 15377 OF 2009 Sow. Chhaya Shankar Vede, Age : 43 years, Occu.: Labourer, R/o : Devi Galli, Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar .. Appellant VERSUS 1] Syed Shaikhlal Mohiddin Age : 38 years, Occu.: Business, R/o : Sangamner, At present : Village Kalas, Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar 2] Shankar S/o Madhav Vede, Age : 58 years, Occu.: Nil, R/o Devi Galli, Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar .. Respondents AND SECOND APPEAL (ST.) NO. 16408 OF 2009 1] Sow. Chhaya Shankar Vede, Age : 43 years, Occu.: Labourer, R/o : Devi Galli, Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar 2] Pandurang S/o Shankar Vede, Age : 6 years, Minor, under the Guardianship of natural Mother, Petitioner no.1, Sow Chaya Shankar Vede, R/o: Devi Galli, Sangamner, Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Aurangabad .. Appellants VERSUS (2) SA. 15377.2009 1] Syed Shaikhlal Mohiddin Age : 38 years, Occu.: Business, R/o : Sangamner, At present : Village Kalas, Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar 2] Shankar S/o Madhav Vede, Age : 58 years, Occu.: Nil, R/o Devi Galli, Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar 3] Santosh Shankar Vede, Age : 18 years, Occu.: Nil, R/o Devi Galli, Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar 4] Alka Shankar Vede @ Alka Nagesh Shere, Age : 21 years, Occu.: Household, R/o : Mani Stove Galli, Village Parle, Mumbai .. Respondents Mr. A.S. Bajaj, Advocate for the appellants Mr. Abhijit S. Joshi, Advocate for the respondent no.1 CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 10TH AUGUST, 2009 ORAL ORDER:- 1] Both these appeals can be disposed of at the admission stage. The appeals arise from cognate applications seeking condonation of delay which were rejected by the learned Additional District Judge, Sangamner. 2] The matters arose from two cognate suits; one filed by the appellant and the other filed by the respondents. The respondents filed suit no. 97 of (3) SA. 15377.2009 1993, for possession, saying that they had purchased the suit house from the appellant. The appellant filed her suit, namely suit no. 4 of 1995 for declaration that the sale deed was void for want of legal necessity etc. Both these suits were tried as cognate suits and were decided against the appellants on 24.4.1998. The appellant did not take further steps immediately. In June, 1998, the respondents started execution and the appellant appeared before the execution Court in September, 1998. She sought adjournment on three occasions until December, 1998. Thereafter, in January, 1999 the possession warrant was issued against the appellant. Subsequent to that the appellant filed appeals against the judgment and decrees in the above mentioned suits before learned District Judge. The appeals were delayed by about 8 months. In view of the facts and circumstances, the Additional District Judge, refused to condone the delay and so, the present appeals are filed. 3] Having heard the submissions of both the parties and in view of the issue of legal necessity, I am inclined to allow the appeals and condone the delay. . Following order would suffice the ends of justice:- . On the appellant’s depositing costs of Rs.3000/- in each Second Appeal, in the lower (4) SA. 15377.2009 appellate Court on or before 30.9.2009, the appeals filed by the appellants in the lower Court shall stand registered. The lower appellate Court shall then decide the appeals on merits. In case of failure to deposit the amount as mentioned above, the present appeals shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Court. If the cost is paid, the same shall be handed over to the respondents immediately. The lower Court is directed to dispose of both the appeals, as far as possible within six months from the date of registration. Sd/- (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) arp