1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4576/2006 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.9731/2006 Demabai w/o Asaram Choudhari and others .. APPLICANTS VERSUS Vinay Pundlik Choudhari and others .. RESPONDENTS .... Shri P.N.Sonpethkar,Adv.for applicants Shri U.M.Deshpande,Adv.for R.1,4 & 5. Shri S.V.Gangapurwala,Adv.for R.2 & 3 Shri P.V.Barde,Adv.for R-6(A) .... CORAM : R.K.DESHPANDE,J. DATE : 04/08/2009 ORAL ORDER : 1] This is an application for condonation of delay of (1332) days delay caused in filing the present appeal challenging the judgment 2 and decree dated 12/6/2002 passed by the 2 nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad dismissing Special Civil Suit No.182/1998 filed by appellant for partition and separate possession. 2] The judgment and decree was passed on 12/6/2002. The limitation for filing the appeal expired on 12/9/2002. The applicants claimed that the counsel appearing for them in Special Civil Suit No. 182/98 did not inform that the decision was rendered by the Court on 12/6/2002. The applicants came to know about the decision for the first time on 4/5/2006. According to the applicants, the respondents were trying to alienate the suit property and therefore, they started moving and searched from the Civil Court record on 4/5/2006, on which date they noticed that the suit was dismissed on 12/6/2002. Hence, this application for condonation of delay, has been filed. 3] The learned counsel for the respondents have filed their affidavits opposing the application for condonation of delay. It is the submission of the learned counsel for respondents that the applicants have nowhere stated as to what efforts they have made to know the progress of the case. The learned counsel pointed out that in fact the applicants had participated in the proceedings and had examined themselves as witnesses before the trial Court and hence they cannot 3 say that they were not aware of the proceedings and the ground put forth by them is false. The learned counsel submitted that even the other Suit No.181/1998 filed by the applicants was dismissed in default. The learned counsel contends that the applicants have not been diligent in prosecuting their case and the ground put forth is false. 4] The learned counsel for the applicants relied upon the decision of the Apex Court reported in 1987 S.C.1353 Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag V/s Smt.Katiji and others in which it has been held that the Court should adopt liberal approach while condoning the delay. The learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the decision of this Court reported in 2007 Vol-III All M.R. 808 Kamalbai V/s Ganpat to urge that merely because there is no intentional delay that cannot be a ground for condonation. 5] After going through the pleadings of the parties, it appears that applicants had participated in the proceedings of Special Civil Suit No. 182/1998. The decision was rendered on 12/6/2002. There are no pleadings in the application as to what steps they have taken to approach the lawyer and inquire about the further progress of the case. The delay of 1332 days has not at all been explained. The applicants appear to be negligent in prosecuting the matters, which are 4 filed in the Court. In view of this, there is no sufficient cause made out for condonation of delay. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants, no doubt holds that the Court should adopt liberal approach. It is now well settled that the length of delay is not material but the satisfactory explanation for the delay is the relevant criteria. From the averments made in the application, the applicants have also not filed any affidavit of lawyer in support of their plea that they were not communicated with the decision rendered by the Civil Court. In view of this, there is absolutely no explanation making out sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Civil Application therefore, stands rejected. [R.K.DESHPANDE] JUDGE umg/ca4576-06