1 C.A.NO. 4366.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4366 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL STAMP NO.3496 OF 2009. Bhagwan Rabha Jagtap & others ...Applicants. VERSUS 1. Sau.Monika Kaduba Shinde & others. ...Respondents. ... Mr.I.S.Thorat,Advocate h/f Mr.S.K.Shinde, Advocate for the applicants. Mr.P.S.Pawar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr.N.C.Garud, Advocate for respondent Nos. 4, 6 & 7. ... CORAM: A.V.NIRGUDE,J. Date : 11th September, 2009. COURT’S ORDER: 1. The application seeks condonation of delay of about 931 days caused in filing of the Second Appeal. 2 C.A.NO. 4366.09 2. There are five appellants. The appellant No.1 is the father of the appellant Nos. 2 to 5. The first appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed on 6th July, 2006. They while seeking condonation of delay, stated that the appellant No.1 alone was looking after this litigation and he fell ill on 1st July, 2006 and thereafter he was bed ridden. They stated that the appellant Nos. 2 to 5 did not know about the pendency of the appeal, it’s disposal etc.. Belatedly, in February, 2009, when the appellants were served with the notices of Darkhast, they learnt about the dismissal of the first appeal and thereafter the present appeal was filed. 3. The respondents No.1 to 3 opposed this application. 4. The question is whether the case of the appellants’ is believable. The answer is in negative. 5. As said above, the appellants are father and sons. The appellants Nos. 2 to 5 are quite aged people having ages in the range of 48 to 58 years. They were parties to the litigation. This litigation had started in 1990. The respondents No. 1 to 3 succeeded in getting the decree of partition in the year 2000. Thereafter, the 3 C.A.NO. 4366.09 appellants filed an appeal before the lower Appellate Court. Even that appeal remained pending for next six years. In view of this long pendency of litigation, it is rather unbelievable that the grownup sons of the appellant No.1 would not know about it or they would not pay attention to it. It is also not believable that they would ignore the consequences of the decree passed in the suit. The delay of 2-3 months in such a case is pardonable owing to the fact that the appellants are resident of village, but delay of about two and half years is unpardonable in absence of any specific and convincing reasons. The application stands dismissed. Second Appeal Stamp No.3496/2009 stands dismissed. 6. In view of this, Civil Application No. 5137/2009 does not survive. It stands disposed of. (A.V.NIRGUDE,J.) lkp