IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.186 OF 2008 IN SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO.1872 OF 2008 Shri Jaywant Yeshwant Jadhav )..Applicant Versus Pandurang Dnyanu Mane & Ors. )..Respondents ---- Ms.A.R.S.Baxi for the applicant. Mr.S.A.Pawar for respondent no.1. ---- Coram : R.S.Mohite,J Coram : R.S.Mohite,J Coram : R.S.Mohite,J Date : 2.5.2008. PC 1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 2 years & 259 days. The decree in question was passed by the District Court on 31.1.2005. The application does not state as to when certified copy was applied or received. A reply is filed on behalf of the respondents and from the same it is revealled that after the decree was passed, darkhast proceeding was filed and the same was allowed after hearing all parties on 21.11.2005. The Collector prepared the kabjepatti and the possession was handed over to the respondents on same day. It is mentioned that respondents were aware of all the proceedings and thereafter the kabjepatti was made. Thereafter appellant filed an appeal in the court of SDO. Copy of : 2 : the order passed in the appeal is also shown to me. The said appeal was dismissed. Advocate for the appellant states that Second Appeal has been filed before the Collector as the division is not strictly in accordance with the decree. She states that the Second Appeal is pending. Be that as it may, in so far as delay, the only reason which is given is that the Advocate had not pointed out correct effect of the decree to the applicant. This reasoning is very vague. Several facts including the fact of dismissal of the appeal by the SDO, making of the kabjepatti, have not been referred to in the application. In my view, cause shown does not amount to sufficient cause. Hence, application is dismissed. Consequently, Second Appeal stands dismissed. It is however, made clear that in the appeal pending before the Collector, it will be open for the appellant to contend that the execution of the decree and the consequent kabjepatti was not strictly in accordance with the decree which now stands confirmed. Only in this regard, all points of both the parties are kept open. (R.S.Mohite,J) (R.S.Mohite,J) (R.S.Mohite,J)