1 CA 11253.10 in S.A. St. 20286.2010 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11253 OF 2010 IN SECOND APPEAL STAMP NO. 20286 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's Orders CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 10/12/2010 PER COURT : 1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 1915 days in filing the Second Appeal. Mr. N.N.Chitalange, learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant did not get the knowledge of the Judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court as the Advocate of the applicant did not intimate the applicant. The applicant is an agriculturist and is residing in rural area. He is also illeterate. The applicant got the knowledge in the month of February, 2010 when the Officer of the Court came for the execution of the decree and at that time he got the knowledge that the Appeal is already dismissed on 17/1/2005 and thereafter he applied for the 2 CA 11253.10 in S.A. St. 20286.2010 certified copies and filed the present Appeal immediately. According to the learned counsel, the delay which is caused is not intentional one but due to the aforesaid reasons. The rights of the applicant in an immovable property are involved. The applicant is not going to gain by causing delay. Mr. Chitalange, learned counsel submits that the expression “ sufficient cause ” has to be liberally construed as the applicant is not expected to explain each and every day’s delay. For the said purpose, he relies on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Collector, Anantnag V/s Katiju reported in AIR 1987 ( SC ) - 1353. 2. Per contra, Mr. R.R. Imale, learned counsel for the non applicant submits that it is the applicant who was to gain by delay. He was enjoying the possession of the property and as such it was his deliberate attempt to cause delay. The non applicant has filed an affidavit controverting the contentions raised by the applicant. The learned counsel submits that the applicant was aware about the filing of the execution petition and all the steps taken therein. It is only when it transpired to him that now he can not sustain the possession, thereafter he has filed the present Appeal. The applicant has nowhere shown diligence and the 3 CA 11253.10 in S.A. St. 20286.2010 negligence of the applicant can not be revived. 3. The delay is of 5 years and 3 months. The application nowhere shows the diligence on the part of the applicant. The applicant being a litigant is expected to contact his lawyer and to know the details of the proceedings going on. For five years after the passing of the Judgment, the applicant did not care to know the details of the proceedings, itself shows that the applicant was negligent. No dates are given as to when the applicant tried to contact his Advocate. No doubt, the expression “ sufficient cause ” has to be liberally construed. But, it can not be stretched to such an extent that the very concept of “ sufficient cause ” would stand erased from the statute books. The application is bereft of any particulars about the steps taken by the applicant to get the knowledge of the proceedings. It is not disputed that the applicant is in possession of the property and certainly he was to gain by causing delay. Both the Courts have passed decree of partition and separate possession. The rights have been accrued to the present non applicant. 4. In light of the above facts and circumstances, the present application does not 4 CA 11253.10 in S.A. St. 20286.2010 come within the realm of “ sufficient cause ”, as such is rejected. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA ] JUDGE knp/CA 11253.10 in SA St. 20286.2010