1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7613 OF 2007 IN SECOND APPEAL STAMP NO. 15009 OF 2007 1. Shankar Appa Bhangare and another .. .. Applicants Versus 1. Tukaram Dagdu Bhangare and others .. .. Respondents Shri G. V. Wani, Advocate for the Applicants. Shri A. N. Lande, Advocate h/f Shri S. T. Shelke, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 2, 3, 6 to 10 served. CORAM : N. D. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 20TH NOVEMBER, 2009. PER COURT : 1. When called out twice none present for the applicants/appellants. Now Shri Wani, the learned counsel for the applicants appeared and made his submissions. Perused the application for condonation of delay. There is delay of 386 days caused in filing the present second appeal. Heard Shri Wani, the learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Lande, the learned 2 counsel for the respondent No. 1. It is also seen that, no steps were taken to serve the respondents No. 4 and 5. On previous date Shri Wani was absent and Shri Venjane requested for adjournment. 2. I have gone through the application for condonation of delay of 386 days. It is no doubt notorious delay for which I find no explanation in the application. The reason stated is that, the applicants were shocked and could not get proper legal guidance as to what to be done, when they came to know about dismissal of the First Appeal. They could not get proper legal guidance on these points. Therefore, they were frustrated and had lost all hopes. This cannot be considered as sufficient cause for extension of period of limitation. The application is devoid of substance, hence rejected and same is disposed of accordingly after hearing both the sides. Rule is discharged. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] bsb/Nov. 09