1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10827 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL ST. NO. 21832 OF 2009 Ankush s/o Bajirao Misal .. APPLICANT VERSUS Maroti s/o Bapurao Bhole & others .. RESPONDENTS Mr. G.C. Navandar, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Dhananjay Deshpande, Advocate for respondent no. 1. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 28 th January, 2010 PER COURT : 1 This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 5 years and 5 months occurred in presenting the second appeal raising exception to the judgment and decree passed by the 5 th Adhoc Additional District Judge, Beed in Regular Civil Appeal no. 95/2002 decided on 23-4-2004 arising out of Special Civil Suit o. 74/95 decided by the Civil Judge, Sr.Dn., Beed on 31-3-997. 2 2 In the application, the applicant contends that during the period between January 2004 till June 2009, he was out of State to earn his livelihood and as such could not take steps. It is contended in paragraph no. 2 of the application that applicant was traveling from place to place in the State of Gujrath in connection with the labour work which he had undertaken to earn his livelihood. Except these contentions, there is absolutely nothing in the application to substantiate the grounds raised therein. There is no material placed on record to substantiate the contentions of the applicant that he was away from the native place during all these years. There is also absolutely nothing in the application to infer as to when the applicant gained knowledge of the judgment and order passed by the first appellate court and what steps he took thereafter. The applicant was negligent in prosecuting the litigation. He has not explained delay of more than five years in presenting the appeal. Decree impugned is in respect of recovery of money. The applicant is benefited because of prolonging of the litigation. In these circumstances, I do not find any reason to condone the lapse. Apart from this aspect, it is to be taken note of that the applicant did not contest the Special Civil Suit no. 74/95 and the suit was proceeded ex-parte in his absence. Thus, it is clear that the applicant has not even placed his defence before the court. In the circumstances 3 enumerated above, therefore, the application does not deserve favourable consideration. Application therefore stands rejected. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/ca10827.09.odt 4 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.__________ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGBAD. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10826 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL ST. NO. 21832 OF 2009 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of | Coram, appearances, Court’s orders | Court’s or Judge’s orders or directions and Registrar/s orders | and Registrar’s orders | CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 28 th January, 2010 . In view of rejection of Civil Application no. 10827/2009, the instant civil application does not survive and stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb / office /ca10827.09.odt