1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3401/2006 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3500/1997 Chaban Bhau Phulari (Deceased) through L. Rs. ...Applicants. versus Suresh s/o Vithal Phulari and others. ..Respondents. Shri N.V. Gavare, Advocate for Applicant. Shri M.S. Mhase, Advocate for respondents. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J Date : 27-11-2009 PER COURT : 1. This is application for condonation of delay of 3728 days caused in filing application for brining L. Rs. of the legal representatives of respondent no.3 Khandu Balaji Jare on record. This petition is filed by the original petitioner challenging the order passed by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on 13-03-1987 by which revision application No. 12/1985 was allowed. By the order impugned the respondents no.3 and other tenants were held to be in possession of the land. This writ petition was admitted in the 2 year 1987 by the Principal Bench of this Court at Bombay. On 24-07-1997 it was transferred to Aurangabad. The matter was dismissed in default on 24-06-2004. The original petitioner expired on 26-01-2005 as he was suffering from Alzima. The petitioners are the legal representatives of the original petitioner. As they were sought to be dis-possessed, they approached this court by filing civil application No. 11258/2005 for condonation of delay in bringing L. Rs. of the petitioner on record which was allowed on 01-10-2009 by reasoned order passed by this Court. The petitioner also filed civil application No. 11257/2005 seeking condonation of delay caused in filing application for restoration of the matter and the same was also allowed by reasoned order dated 13-07-2006. Both these orders are placed on record by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Now, the position is that the orders are to be passed on the application for restoration of the petition as well as the application for bringing L. Rs. of the petitioner on record. Thus, civil application No. 6148/2006 for restoration and civil application No.10815 for bringing L. Rs. of the petitioner on record are pending now for orders. The petitioner has been granted an order of status quo by this Court which is operating as a result orders passed by lower authority, have not been executed. 2. The petitioner has filed civil application No. 3401/2006 for condonation of delay of 3728 days caused in filing application for bringing 3 names of L. Rs. of respondent no.3 on record. Similarly, another civil application No.5189/2006 for bringing L. Rs . of respondent no. 3 on record is also filed. Thus, all these applications are now being disposed of by this common order. 3. The reason for condonation of delay of 3728 days caused in filing application for bringing names of L. Rs. of respondent no. 3 on record are stated in detail in the application by the petitioner. The petitioner relies upon the orders dated 01-10-2009 and 13-06-2006 passed by this Court condoning delay caused in filing application being civil application nos. 11258/2005 and 11257/2005. The learned counsel further states that same reasons are given in present civil application seeking the condonation of delay. In addition to this, the learned counsel further urged that the fact that the respondent no.3 has expired; was not to the knowledge of the petitioners and it is not the plea taken by the respondents in the reply filed on record to the application, that any purshis was filed on record indicating death of respondent no.3. It is further urged that, the petitioners were required to search out the names of L. Rs. of respondent no.3 and the proposed L. Rs. are Class-II legal heirs of the respondent no.3. For all these reasons, the condonation of delay is sought for. The respondents have filed their reply and opposed the application for condonation of delay. It is the stand of the respondents that the petitioner has 4 not given any explanation for the delay caused since 29-09-1995 till October, 2005. According to the respondents, there is no sufficient cause made out for condonation of delay and the reasons given are far from truth. 4. It is the stand taken by the respondents in their reply that respondent no. 3 was residing at Ahmednagar at the time of his death and the petitioner was also residing at Ahmednagar and therefore, the petitioner was well aware of the death of Khandu Balaji Jare respondent no.3 but he failed to take steps as the respondent no.3 was not having any son. In view of the fact that the original petitioner has expired and that the respondent no.3 died issue less, in my view, the explanation furnished by the petitioner can be appreciated that they required time to find out names of L. Rs. of original respondent no.3 and also regarding pendency of instant writ petition. 5. In view of aforesaid position and after going through the reasons recorded by this court in the orders dated 01-10-2009, 13-07-2006 while condoning delay, I am satisfied that earlier, delay was condoned on the same ground and this application also makes out sufficient cause for condonation of 3728 days delay, caused in bringing L. Rs. of respondent no.3 on record. It is now well settled that what is material, is the satisfaction of sufficient cause given in the application and length of delay is of no consequence. If the Court is satisfied about existence of sufficient cause, then delay has to be condoned. 5 Hence, the application is allowed. Delay is condoned. Similarly, all other applications, consequently, for bringing L.Rs. of the petitioner on record being civil application No.10815, the civil application no. 6148 for restoration of the petition, and the Civil application No.5189/2006, for bringing names of L.Rs. of respondent no. 3 on record are all allowed. The matter is restored to its original position and interim order passed earlier shall continue. The petitioner to carry out necessary amendment within a period of two weeks from today, failing which the matter shall stand dismissed without reference to Court. Put up this matter for hearing after ‘X’mas vacation. (R.K.DESHPANDE, J) tsk/ca3401.06