1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.154 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.152 OF 2010 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 153 OF 2010 IN SECOND APPEAL ST. NO. 21299 OF 2009 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 : 26.03.2010 This is an application for condonation of delay for 10 years and 74 days in filing Second Appeal. Present appellants are the original defendants and the present respondents are legal representatives of the original plaintiff. Original plaintiff Laxman Salunke filed R.C.S. No.313 of 1992 for possession on title in respect of Gat No. 270 situated at Nagapur (Khurd) Taluka and District Beed. Suit came to be decided and decreed by the 2 2nd Joint Civil Judge, S.D. Beed on 29-09-1995. The appeal could not be filed in the District Court immediately and therefore, the appeal was filed with application for condonation of delay of one year, 8 months and 8 days. It was registered as Misc. C.A. No. 252/1997. Learned 5th Additional District Judge, Beed dismissed the said application for condonation of delay by order dated 03-04-1999. 2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, present applicants/appellants filed C.R.A. No. 550/1999 in this Court. Same came to be admitted. Thereafter, in view of the amendment in the Code of Civil Procedure, the Revision Application was not maintainable and therefore, the High Court was pleased to grant leave for withdrawal of C.R.A. and ordered as 3 "dismissed as withdrawn" by order dated 22-12-2004. However, it is stated that there was gap of communication between the clients and Advocate and therefore, Second Appeal or Writ Petition as against the order of dismissal of Misc. C.A. No. 252/1997 decided by the 5th Additional District Judge, Beed could not filed and thus, there is delay of 10 years and 74 days. 3. Heard Shri. V.N. Damle, Advocate for the applicants and Shri. Rahul Dhase, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1, 3 to 7. After perusing the above said facts mentioned, it is clear that on 22-12-2004 there was withdrawal of C.R.A. in view of the amendment in the Code of Civil Procedure and therefore, we can understand delay from 03-04-1999 the date on which M.C.A. No. 252/1997 was dismissed by the 5th Additional 4 District Judge, Beed till 22-12-2004, as the same can be condoned under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. However, the delay after 22-12-2004 is not satisfactorily explained. It is stated that there was communication gap, but the act of withdrawal of C.R.A. was a voluntary act and it is difficult to believe that the advocates must not have informed about it to the clients. Ultimately, it is for the clients to decide whether they should pursue their matter. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not satisfied with the reasons given for delay after 22-12-2004 till date of filing of the present application i.e. 23-09-2009. That delay is almost of five years. The application deserves to be dismissed. The Civil Application for 5 condonation of delay is dismissed. 5. Civil Application Nos. 152/2010 and 153/2010 are no more survive, in view of the dismissal of the Civil Application No.154/2010 for condonation of delay, and hence disposed of accordingly [P.R. BORKAR,J.] sut/MAR10/ca154.10