3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD C.A. NO. 9163 OF 2007 IN C.R.A. (ST) NO. 19804 OF 2007 C.A. NO. 9165 OF 2007 IN C.R.A. (ST) NO. 19795 OF 2007 C.A. NO. 9166 OF 2007 IN C.R.A. (ST) NO. 19799 OF 2007 C.A. NO. 9168 OF 2007 IN C.R.A. (ST) NO. 19796 OF 2007 C.A. NO. 9169 OF 2007 IN C.R.A. (ST) NO. 19803 OF 2007 C.A. NO. 9170 OF 2007 IN C.R.A. (ST) NO. 19801 OF 2007 C.A. NO. 9171 OF 2007 IN C.R.A. (ST) NO. 19818 OF 2007 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. DATED : 21.08.2009 1. These are all applications with identical contents for condonation of delay of 999 days in filing Civil Revision Applications against the dismissal of Land References filed by them. All the Land References were dismissed on 26.10.2004 by the learned II Adhoc Additional District Judge, Beed, mainly on the ground that present applicants did not lead any evidence in support of their land references and in absence of evidence same deserves to be dismissed. 2. It is stated that the applicants 3 had engaged their advocate, who died in about 2002-2003. Thereafter, the applicants engaged Adv. Shri S.K. Raut and Adv. Shri B.L. Bhople. It is stated that thereafter the applicants were never informed about the stage of the reference petitions. The applicants were not aware even of the dismissal of their applications by the Court on 26.10.2004. In the month of August, 2007, the applicants made enquiry with their advocates and they learnt that their references had been dismissed. Thereafter, the steps were taken for filing the proceedings in the High Court. 3. It is clear that from 2002-2003 after engagement of Adv. Shri Raut and Adv. Shri Bhople as their advocates, the applicants never turned to their advocates until August, 2007. This inaction is not properly explained by any of the applicant. It is stated that one Anant Choudhari was looking after the Court proceedings on their behalf, but that is no proper explanation. There is no explanation why the claimants did not approach the 3 advocates and co-operated in conducting the matters. It is worth noting that the same reasons sentence by sentence are mentioned in all the applications. So, it is difficult to rely on the affidavits of the applicants. It is also stated that after August, 2007, the applicants met their advocate at Beed and asked him the stage of matters filed by them in the High Court and then application for copies was given on 18.09.2007 and these applications were filed on 19.10.2007. 4. I am not satisfied with the delay and inaction of the applicants for not approaching their advocates after 2002-2003 at any time. Not being satisfied with the reasons, the applications are dismissed. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/AUG09/ca9163.07