1 S.A.NO. 643/2009. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO.643 OF 2009. Yusuf Babubhai Shaikh ...Appellant. VERSUS 1. Osmanbhai Sajanbhai Shaikh & others. ...Respondents. ... Mr.R.N.Dhorde,Advocate h/f Mr.V.R.Dhorde, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.S.T.Shelke,Advocate for the respondents No.1,4 & 5. ... CORAM: A.V.NIRGUDE,J. Date : 11th September, 2009. COURT’S ORDER: 1. This Second Appeal is filed against the order passed by the learned District Judge, Sangamner rejecting the appellant’s application seeking condonation of delay of 447 days in preferring the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31st of December, 2007 passed by the Civil Judge, J.D.Akole, Dist.Ahmednagar in RCS 2 S.A.NO. 643/2009. No.86/1999. 2. The respondent No.1 had filed RCS No.86/1999 against his siblings and their children, one of whom, was the present appellant Yusuf. Yusuf happened to be son of the respondent Nos.1’s brother Babu. The suit was filed for partition of the ancestral property. The respondent No.1 asserted that the ancestral property should be divided equally amongst the six siblings. 3. As said above, the suit was decreed on 31st December, 2007. It is the case of the appellant that though he was party to the suit, summons was not served on him. He did not appear before the Civil Court and what is shown to the Civil Court is his pursis giving no objection to the claim in the suit, which according to him was a forgery. He said, he learnt about the decree recently when he went to the village where the suit land is situated. The learned District Judge, Sangamner, disbelieved this case, mainly because he noted that in other suit filed by the respondent No.1 Osman (RCS No.87/1999) the present appellant though was not party came to Court as a witness of the defendant. The subject matter of suit No. 87/1999 was different and was not connected to the suit land of Suit No.86/1999. But during the deposition, the appellant admitted the knowledge of the pendency of the suit No.86/1999 and that 3 S.A.NO. 643/2009. he was party to it. His deposition was recorded on 4th of January, 2007. In view of this admiision, it can be said that at least in January, 2007 the appellant knew about the pendency of this suit which 12 months later got decreed. The learned Judge of lower Court gave elaborate reasons why he had rejected and disbelieved the appellant's case seeking condonation of delay. I find that the reasons are appropriate and cogent. I do not think there is any need of interference. Besides, there is no substantial question of Law involved in this appeal. This Second Appeal is dismissed. 4. In view of this, Civil Application No. 9248/2009 does not survive. It stands disposed of. (A.V.NIRGUDE,J.) lkp