1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6617 OF 2010 IN REVIEW APPLN.(ST.) NO. 12542 OF 2010 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9020 OF 2007 IN CIVIL APPLN. (ST.) NO. 12289 OF 2007 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.367 OF 1995 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders CORAM: P.R.BORKAR, J. Date : June 29, 2010 Shri S.P.Deshmukh, Advocate for the applicant. Shri S.S.Chaudhari, Advocate for Respondent. ----- 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. This is an application for condonation of delay of 589 days in making application for review of the 2 order passed by this court on 17.7.2008 in Civil Application No.8020 of 2007 in Civil Appln. (St.) No. 12289 of 2007 in Second Appeal No.367 of 1995, whereby this court dismissed the application for condonation of delay of nine years in filing application for bringing legal heirs of deceased appellant on record and setting aside abatement of the second appeal. 3. Briefly stated, appellant Lalkhan was the original defendant against whom Respondent Abdul Wahab-original plaintiff had obtained decree for possession in respect of a portion of land, admeasuring 7 ft. x 12 ft. in R.C.S. No.10 of 1987 decided by learned II Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Parbhani on 29.6.1983. Regular Civil Appeal No.101 of 1989 filed by Defendant came to be dismissed by the learned District Judge, Parbhani on 29.6.1993. It is this order of dismissal of said R.C.A., which is challenged in present second appeal No.367 of 1995. 3 4. Pending the second appeal, appellant died on 5.5.1998. However, since then no application for bringing legal heir of deceased appellant on record was filed till 16.7.2007 when Civil Application No.8020 of 2007 was filed seeking condonation of delay of nine years in bringing legal heir of deceased appellant on record and for setting aside abatement of the second appeal. This court considered the said application on merits and after giving detailed reasons dismissed the same by order dated 17.8.2008. Consequently, on same day i.e. 17.8.2008, second appeal was disposed of as abated. 5. Thereafter, Bhikan Lalkhan-legal heir of deceased appellant filed application bearing stamp No.12542 of 2010 seeking review of the said order dated 17.7.2008 passed in Civil Application No.8020 of 2007 and prayed that delay as prayed in said Civil Application No.8020 of 2007 be condoned and he be allowed to be brought on 4 record as legal heir of the deceased appellant. 6. In paragraph 3 of present Civil Application (No.6617 of 2010) it is stated that after the court passed the order on 17.7.2008, it was immediately communicated by Advocate to the applicants, but the applicant did not receive the said communication and it might have been scuttled by some interested person and/or prevented from reaching the destination. However, it is very easy to blame somebody else. In para.4, it is further stated that the applicant learnt about dismissal of application for condonation of delay and restoration of second appeal only on 20.4.2010 when he received notice from Civil Court, Parbhani in respect of execution of decree impugned in Second Appeal No.367 of 1995. 7. Shri S.P.Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the apllicant, in support of his case, relied upon two cases viz. Keshao vs. State of Mah. 2005 (1) Mh.L.J.1059 5 and Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji AIR 1987 SC 1353. 8. In present case, not only there was delay of nine years in approaching this court for bringing legal heirs of original appellant on record, but when that delay was not condoned, no immediate steps were taken by the applicant for filing review application or for challenging the rejection of application for condonation of delay in higher court. It is worth noting that litigation between the parties has been pending from 1987 as can be seen from the year when suit was filed i.e.R.C.S. No.10 of 1987 by the Respondent. 09. It is in the interest of the society and litigant that the litigation should end somewhere. The Limitation Act is based on some sound principles and delay of abnormal nature cannot be condoned lightly unless some cogent and strong reasons as shown. In present case no justifiable or convincing reasons are shown for condoning delay of 589 days in 6 making application for review of the order dated 17.7.2008. 10. Not being satisfied with the reasons given, civil application for condonation of delay stands dismissed. pnd/ca6617.10 (P.R.BORKAR, J.)