FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4263 OF 2007 AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4264 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 7271 OF 2000 ________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | ________________________________________________________ Civil Application No.4263 of 2007 is for condonation of delay of 1758 days caused in filing Civil Application for setting aside the order dated 19th March, 2000 passed by the Additional Registrar refusing registration of First Appeal St. No.7171 of 2000 and Civil Application No.4364 of 2007 is for setting aside order dated 19th March, 2000 refusing registration of First Appeal St. No.7271 of 2000. 2 In support of these applications, Shri Latif, learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants were not aware of the objections and consequently, they were not aware of refusal of registration on 19th March, 2000 by the Addl. Registrar. They came to know about refusal of the registration for the first time on 8th December, 2006 when the copy of the order of refusal of registration was placed on record of the trial Court in Special Civil Suit No.249 of 1990. It is in these circumstances, it is submitted that the delay caused is neither deliberate nor intentional. On this ground, the prayer is made for condoning the delay of 1758 days in filing the civil application. 3 On behalf of the respondents, affidavit of respondent No.1 Syed Aleemuddin @ Saber Pasha Syed Ahsanuddin is filed resisting the application. It is submitted that the delay is not properly explained and it does not constitute sufficient cause for condoning delay. On account of failure of the applicants in taking timely steps, rights have accrued in favour of the respondents. It is further submitted that despite the preliminary decree in favour of respondents, the applicants are in possession of the suit property. In view of this, the application was strenuously opposed. 4 I have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length. Undisputedly, the appeal was filed within time. However, on account of non compliance of office objections, registration was refused on 19th March, 2000. It is the case of the applicants that they came to know about this fact for the first time on 8th December, 2006 when the order was produced on record of the trial Court. At the same time, the respondents - plaintiffs have succeeded in the trial Court and the applicants are in possession of the suit property. Though the delay, in my opinion, is not satisfactorily explained, in the interest of justice, delay deserves to be condoned by imposing costs on the applicants as a condition precedent for restoration of the first appeal. Considering the nature of the property involved in the litigation and the status of the parties, ends of justice would be served by imposing costs of Rs.6000/- on the applicants to be paid to the respondent No.1 within a period of four weeks. Payment of costs shall be the condition precedent for restoration of the first appeal. 5 Hence, the following order: Civil Application Nos.4263 of 2007 and 4264 of 2007 are allowed in terms of prayer clauses (B) of the applications subject to payment of Rs.6000/- to respondent No.1 within a period of four weeks from today. If the amount of costs is not paid within the period of four weeks from today, the order dated 19th March, 2000 shall stand revived without further reference to the Court. The applicants shall remove office objections within four weeks from today. (R.G. KETKAR, J.) 17.11.2009. PLK/*