ao142.10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 142 OF 2010 Shashikant s/o Venkatrao Alsatwar .. APPELLANT VERSUS Suryakant s/o Venkatrao Alsatwar & others .. RESPONDENTS Mr. H.V. Patil, advocate for the appellant. Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, advocate for respondents. ===== CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 22 nd MARCH, 2011. PER COURT : 1 Appellant is raising exception to the order passed by the learned District Judge 1, Basmathnagar, below exh. 1 in M.A. (RJE) No. 14/2007 dated 3 rd July, 2010 thereby dismissing the application presented by the appellant seeking restoration of M.A. (RJE) No. 2/2007 which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 17-7-2007. ao142.10 2 2 Appellant herein / original plaintiff instituted Regular Civil Suit no. 30/1994 claiming declaration that the suit property is joint family property and for issuance of decree of permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property. Suit came to be dismissed by the trial court on 19-3-1998. Original plaintiff presented appeal being Regular Civil Appeal no. 71/1998 to the District Court, Parbhani. The appeal was listed for hearing before the First Adhoc Additional District Judge, Parbhani on 19-10-2003. However, learned counsel appearing for the appellant refused to argue the matter and as such the same came to be dismissed for want of prosecution. An application was presented by the original plaintiff seeking restoration of the appeal after lapse of about three years. Alongwith the application seeking restoration of appeal, an application was presented requesting the court to condone delay of about three years occurred in approaching the court. The application for condonation of delay in presenting restoration application in a pending appeal was listed before the District Court on 17-7-2007. However, on account of absence of the petitioner as well as his counsel, the application came to be dismissed. Petitioner thereafter presented an ao142.10 3 application seeking restoration of the application for condonation of delay occurred in presenting the application for restoration of the appeal. The first appellate court found that the reasons set forth by the applicant in the application seeking indulgence in his favour are not convincing and as such dismissed the application. 3 I have perused the order passed by the learned District Judge – 1, Basmathnagar on 3-7-2010. Undoubtedly, the applicant is negligent in prosecuting the litigation. Appeal presented by him came to be dismissed for want of prosecution. Application presented seeking restoration was barred by more than three years and as such application seeking condonation of delay in presenting the application for restoration was presented, which also was dismissed for want of prosecution. These facts in themselves reveal that the applicant is not at all diligent in prosecuting the litigation. I do not find that the first appellate court has committed any error in rejecting the application seeing condontion of delay occurred in presenting the application for restoration of the appeal. This is not a fit case for exercising discretion in favour of the appellant. Appeal is devoid of substance hence stands rejected. ao142.10 4 4 In view of disposal of the appeal, pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE dyb