1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5259 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10865 OF 2004 IN SECOND APPEAL STAMP NO. 8059 OF 2003 The State of Maharashtra and others - - Applicants Versus Shankar Gulaba Bhill and others - - Respondents Shri Suryawanshi, A.G.P. for the Applicants/State. Shri V. R. Lad, Advocate h/f Shri V. D. Sapkal, Advocate for the Respondents No. 4 & 5. CORAM : P. R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 24TH JUNE, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1. Heard learned A.G.P. for the applicants/State and Shri V. R. Lad 2 for the respondents No. 4 & 5. The Civil Application No. 5259/2009 is for condonation of delay and for bringing legal representatives of respondent No. 1 to 3 on record. The delay in respect of respondent No. 1 is of 2211 days, the delay in respect of respondent No. 2 is 3327 days and delay in respect of respondent No. 3 is 501 days. Civil Application No. 10865 of 2004 is for condonation of delay in filing second appeal and delay is of 379 days. 2. It is clear from the dates death of respondent No. 1 and 2 as mentioned in civil application No. 5259/2009 that both of them have expired pending civil appeal No. 66/1994 before the District Court Dhule. The original suit was for declaration and injunction. The Trial Court gave declaration that the plaintiffs including respondent No. 1 to 3 were entitled to get benefit of Government Resolution dated 27.12.1978 and dated 12.09.1979 and their possession over the suit land needs to be regularized. It is a common decree passed. There is also decree of injunction restraining disturbance of possession of these persons. In view of death of respondent No. 1 and 2 pending the appeal the decree passed by Trial Court has become final. The decree passed in R.C.A. No. 66/1994 by the District Court Dhule has become decree against dead person. Considering the nature of suit the entire appeal stands abated and decree against dead cannot be executed so far as respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 are concerned. So considering all the circumstances in my opinion, there is no purpose in allowing both these civil applications, as the decree 3 passed by the Trial Court is final. Both these applications are dismissed. [ P. R. BORKAR, ] JUDGE bsb/June 09/CA 5259.09