1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8875 OF 2009 IN SAST NO. 17527 OF 2009. Mukund S/o Gopal Palse (Burud) (died) through L.Rs. Smt.Salubai W/o Mukund Palse (Burud) and others ... Applicants. Versus Kashinath S/o Tukaram Palse (Burud) ... Respondent. ... Mr.H.A.Joshi, advocate for the applicants. Mr.S.B.Talekar, advocate for the Respondent. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 19.11.2009. PER COURT 1. This is an application for condonation of delay caused in filing of the appeal. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 3. The delay is of 3832 days i.e. more than ten (10) years. 4. According to the applicants, their predecessor i.e. husband of the applicant No.1 and father of the applicant Nos.2 to 4, namely, Mukund was the defendant in the suit and was looking after the litigation. Said Mukund died on 31.8.2001 and thereafter, the applicants were brought on record as his legal representatives. It is pertinent to notice that they were brought on record in the course of execution of the decree (RD No.16/1999). The death of deceased defendant had occurred after passing of the decree. The learned counsel for the Respondents has placed on record a copy of Vakilpatra filed by the applicants on 20.2.2002 in the execution proceedings (RD No.16/1999). 5. It is beyond dispute that the applicants were well aware regarding the execution proceedings which were pending before the learned Joint Civil Judge (J.D.) Nilanga. There is absolutely no material on record to show 3 that they were unable to gather information regarding the impugned judgment and decree. They participated in the execution proceedings after the decree. The deceased defendant did not not file Second Appeal against judgment of the first appellate Court which was delivered on 3.2.1999. Needless to say, the Second Appeal was barred by limitation as on the date of death of the deceased defendant. There was no reason for deceased defendant Mukund to keep silence and not to challenge the judgment of the first appellate Court. In other words, the judgment and decree rendered by the first appellate Court attained finality in the life time of said Mukund. He was appellant before the first appellate Court in RCA No.9/1998. It is explicit that when deceased defendant Mukund, who accepted the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court in respect of delivery of possession and when the Second Appeal was barred by limitation during his life time, his legal heirs can not file the Second Appeal without explaining the delay which occurred during the life time of defendant Mukund. They can not claim that they had no notice of the 4 impugned judgment and decree because they participated in the execution proceedings by filing Vakilpatra on 20.2.2002. There is no justification for the delay between February 2002 till August 2009. From all angles, the delay is attributable to sheer negligence of deceased defendant Mukund as well as the applicants. Hence,the application does not satisfy the parameters enumerated in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for want of "sufficient cause". 6. In the result, the application is dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/Ca8875.09