1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5465 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5466 OF 2010 IN SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO. 7290 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 : P.R. BORKAR.J. DATED : 23.04.2010 1. Heard Adv. Shri A.K. Gawali for the applicant. This is an application for condonation of delay of 1746 days in filing the Second Appeal. The learned advocate for the applicant drew my attention to the decree passed by the First Appellate Court, which is as follows:- “i) Appeal is partly allowed with no order as to costs. ii) It is hereby declared that plaintiff is owner of the eastern wall of his newly constructed house situated in property No. 108. iii) Defendant is restrained permanently from placing tin sheets over his eastern side newly constructed 2 house or from doing any act that will damage this eastern side wall. iv) The claim of the plaintiff for injunction that defendant should not carry any activities within 5’ from this eastern side wall or from touching the tin sheets to his wall stands rejected.” 2. The learned advocate Shri A.K. Gawali argued that taking advantage of clause (iv) of the order rejecting injunction restraining the defendants from carrying out activities within 5’ of eastern wall or touching tin sheets of his wall, the respondent started nuisance and likely to cause damage to the wall situated at open eastern side of Grampanchayat House No. 108 belonging to the applicant. It is further stated that since the advocate had informed the appellant that the suit was decreed in his favour he did not insist on certified copy and only after nuisance was started, he approached the police. The police said that it is civil dispute. It is stated that only after receiving notice of Second Appeal No. 596 of 2008 filed by the respondents and after getting information about the order passed by 3 the Court, the applicant learnt about 4th clause of the order. 3. After giving anxious consideration to the submissions made and the fact, it appears that the delay is of 1746 days and considering that only grievance made is that the respondent was causing nuisance and was likely to cause damage to his wall, he has approached the Court; in my opinion, the delay is abnormal. Already there is declaration and limited injunction in his favour. The applicant is at liberty to avail appropriate remedy available for him regarding nuisance. I am not satisfied regarding the reasons given for delay. The Civil Application stands dismissed. 4. In view of dismissal of applications for condonation of delay, Civil Application No. 5466 of 2010 for stay does not survive and it is disposed of as such. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2010/APR10/ca5465.10