1 (CAS 595 of 2010) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 595 OF 2010 IN SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO.9771 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.596 OF 2010 IN SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO.9771 OF 2010 Ganpat Babaji Sutar @ Panchal since deceased through LRs. Kashibai Ganpat Sutar @ Panchal and Ors. ...Applicants/ Appellants Vs. Raghunath Sakharam Sutar @ Panchal since deceased through LRs. Jagannath Raghunath Panchal and Ors. ...Respondents ----- Mr.S.R. Mishra i/b. Mr.Ashok M. Saraogi for Applicants Mr.Amough Karindekar i/b. M/s. Khandeparkar & Associates for Respondent Nos.1 to 6 ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 24th June, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants and the Respondents. 2. There is a delay of 1 year and 102 days in filing the second appeal. The only reason which is given in the 2 (CAS 595 of 2010) application is that the Applicants had relied on their advocate, who informed them that the appeal is still pending. According to the Applicants, they came to know about the dismissal of the appeal for the first time in January, 2010. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents has vehemently opposed this application for condonation of delay. He submitted that no particulars have been mentioned in the application regarding the date of knowledge. He has stated that moreover, the application is filed in April, 2010 i.e. four months after the date of knowledge and no explanation has been given as to why the appeal could not be filed within time. 4. There is much substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents. There is an inordinate delay caused in filing the second appeal. Sufficient cause has not been shown for condonation of delay. Hence, civil application is dismissed. Second appeal does not survive and is disposed of. Civil Application no. 596 of 2010 does not survive and is also disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)