1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10 OF 2010 IN SECOND APPEAL STAMP NO.31229 OF 2009 Maruti Raghu Chor since deceased through his LR’s 1A.Smt.Saraswati Maruti Chor & Ors. .. Applicants V/s Sou.Sunita Hanumant Redkar & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Pankaj Deokar i/by Mr.Rahul Kate for the Applicants. Mr.V.H.Gokhale, AGP for the Respondents. CORAM: R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE: 11.03.2011 P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This is an application for condonation of 3 years and 285 days delay caused in filing the second appeal. The Respondents instituted Special Civil Suit No.673 of 1990 for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 2.6.1988. By the judgment and decree dated 19.9.1995 the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune decreed the suit subject to the Respondents-plaintiffs paying he amount of Rs.1,03,000/-to the applicants-Defendants or depositing the same in the Court with an intimation to the Defendants. Aggrieved by this decision, the applicants preferred Appeal No.226 of 2001 which was dismissed on 24.8.2006. The applicants thereafter made an application for certified copy on 19.1.2009 which was delivered to them on 5.2.2009 and the present civil application and the second appeal is filed on 18.9.2009. In paragraph No.4 of the application it is averred that after death of father of the applicants, dispute 2 started among them on the ground of partition. Since the litigation was pending, nobody was interested in prosecuting the litigation and nobody was willing to finance costs of the litigation. 2. Opposing this application, the Respondent has filed affidavit, wherein, it is stated that after passing of the decree by the learned District Judge on 24.6.2006 the Respondent filed special Darkhast No.219 of 2006 and she obtained possession through Court on 21.10.2008. It is further averred that since then the Respondent is cultivating the land in dispute. Mr.Gokhale states that in the execution proceedings, the Respondent has deposited Rs. 1,03,000/- as ordered by the Courts below in the Darkhast proceedings. He further states that he has no objection if the applicants are permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by the Respondent, in case they have not already withdrawn the said amount. 3. Having regard to the controversy raised between the parties and having further due regard to the fact that the Courts below have concurrently decreed the suit instituted by the Respondent, in my opinion, no case for condonation of delay is made out. This is particularly when the Respondent has executed the decree on 21.10.2008 and obtained possession through the Court. Even after the Respondent obtaining possession on 21.10.2008, the present second appeal is filed on 18.9.2009. No case for condonation of delay is made out. Civil Application is rejected. 4. However, the Applicants are permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by the Respondent in the executing Court, if they have not already withdrawn that amount. Subject to this, civil application is disposed of. (R.G.KETKAR, J.)