Ndm 1 cas.286.09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 286 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 1126 OF 1972 Jaffar Sayyed Ali Azdar and ors. ... APPELLANTS VERSUS Shaikh Khurshid Amed Tajmohamed and ors. ... RESPONDENTS ------------------------ Shri. R.V.Govilkar for the Applicants. Shri. P.B.Shah for the Respondents. ------------------------ CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J DATE : 11th August, 2009. P.C. 1 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This is an application for restoration of Second Appeal No. 1126 of 1972, which was dismissed on 12.02.1973. It appears that the creditors of the original debtor, due to non satisfaction of the decree, had filed insolvency proceeding and the property of the debtor was put to sale. In that proceeding one Dadamiya claimed to have purchased that property of Rs.1,50,000/-. One Shaikh Khurshid as a third party appeared in first appeal and contended that the tenements in that property should be sold to the tenants in the property who would form a cooperative society. The First Appellate Court directed him to deposit Rs.1,00,000/- before his application could be considered. However, he could not deposit the amount and had challenged that order Ndm 2 cas.286.09.sxw in Second Appeal No. 1126 of 1972. The High Court directed him to deposit Rs.1,50,000/-. That amount was never deposited and finally on 12.02.1973 that Second Appeal was dismissed. The Applicants who have filed the present application for restoration of the appeal contend that they had collected the money, but could not move the application earlier. No valid reasons are given by them to show as to why the application for restoration was not made for 36 years. The legal heirs of Dadamiya, who had purchased the property, contend that the tenants are paying the rents to them and now that appeal cannot be restored. The learned counsel for the Applicants contends that in fact, the amount was contributed and with that meony Dadamiyan had purchased the property, but in his own name instead of the society of the tenants. This contention is directly contradictory to the facts. In fact, the records reveal that in the Second Appeal he was already shown as purchaser and that transaction was challenged by third party Shaikh Khurshid in the First Appeal as well as Second Appeal. If there is any substance in the contention of the applicants that Dadamiyan had cheated, then their remedy is not in restoration of the Second Appeal, but somewhere else. 2 For the reasons, this application is rejected. J.H. BHATIA, J.