IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 177 OF 2008 IN CROSS OBJECTIONS (ST) NO. 794 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 597 OF 1995 Balu P.Bhoir and Ors. ...Applicants. V/s. State of Maharashtra ....Respondents ========= Mr.Sachin Punde h/f.Mr.Rajiv Patil, adv.for applicants. AGP for the respondents. CORAM: SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED: 18TH NOVEMBER, 2008. P.C. : 1. This Civil Application is taken out by the respondents who are the original claimants for condoning delay of 12 years and one month in filing cross-objections to the First Appeal. The application is opposed by the appellant. 2. The two grounds set out in the Civil Application for condonation of delay are that, the applicants were not aware that they are supposed to file cross objections to get compensation at the enhanced rate. They were under the impression that once an appeal is preferred, then the Appellate Court once again considers the matter afresh and they will get compensation at the enhanced rate. In other words, the applicants are claiming ignorance of law as one of the grounds for not filing the cross-objections within the time granted under Order 41 Rule 22(1) CPC. The second ground is that the applicants being poor persons were unable to raise the amount of court-fees to be paid in the court for the cross- objections. On a query from the court, Mr. Punde learned counsel for the applicants states that the court fees to be paid on the cross-objections is of Rs.1200/-. 3. Ignorance of law is not an excuse available to a litigant. There is one more reason for not allowing the excuse of ignorance of law. During the entire period of delay of 12 years and one month, the applicants are represented by lawyers. They could have had the access to legal consultancy. Therefore, there can be no substance in the first ground made out in the application. As regards the second ground, it is difficult to believe that it took more than 12 years for the applicants to generate the amount of court fees of Rs.1200/- to be paid in the court. 4. Mr.Punde submits that a similar application for condonation of delay of more than 14 years in filing cross- objections had been made in First Appeal No.1081 of 1991 . That application was allowed by the order dated 31st March, 2008. He seeks to rely upon the same. He further submits that in the matter of condonation of delay, the court should take liberal and justice oriented view and condone the delay. Another submission advanced by him, is that the present case would be governed by the decision of the Division Bench of this court dated 25th and 26th February, 1992 in the case of Nama Padu Hudar passed in First Appeal No. 724 of 1996 and other connected Appeals. Considering the decision of the Division Bench, the respondents would be entitled to compensation within the range of Rs.20/- to Rs.25/- per sq.mtr. Unless the delay in filing the cross-objections is condoned and cross-objections taken are taken on file, the respondents would not be able to get compensation at the enhanced rate by taking advantage of the decision of the Division Bench. 5. The facts of the case in which the order dated 31st March, 2008 was passed are entirely different. Para-11 of the order takes note of the peculiar facts of that case. Though appeal in which the cross-objections were sought to be filed, was of the year 1991, the claimants had appeared in the First Appeal through their advocate on 22nd April, 2004. Then the appeal stood abated as against respondent no.4. The State filed an application for setting aside abatement, which application was allowed on 22nd March, 2006. Thereafter, the cross-objections came be filed on 12th April, 2006. Thus, the court was of the view that cross-objections filed by atleast the legal representative of respondent no.4 was within time. 6. In the instant case, admittedly the applicants appeared in the First Appeal on receipt of the notice on 15th October, 1995. Since then, the applicants took no steps for filing cross objections. If the court is to have a liberal view in the matter, there has to be some support from the facts of the case. Otherwise the order would be tainted with arbitrariness. In the instant case, it is obvious that the applicants have been sleeping over their rights for all these years. The law cannot come to the rescue of indolent persons. 7. The next aspect to be considered is the anxiety on the part of the applicants in obtaining benefit of the decision of the Division Bench in Namu Hudars' case. Mr.Punde draws attention of the court to the reference to the provision of Order 41 Rule 33 C.P.C. in the decision cited by him. Rule 33 reads as under : “R.33. Power of Court of Appeal.- The Appellate Court shall have power to pass any decree and make any order which ought to have been passed or made and to pass or make such further or other decree or order as the case may require, and this power may be exercised in favour of all or any of the respondents or parties, although such respondents or parties may not have filed any appeal or objection [and may, where there have been decrees in cross-suits or where two or more decrees re passed in one suit, be exercised in respect of all or any of the decrees, although an appeal may not have been filed against such decrees]: . Provided that the Appellate Court shall not make any order under Section 35A, in pursuance of any objection on which the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has omitted or refused to make such order]”. . Mr.Punde submits that if the appellate court can exercise powers under Rule 33 above for passing appropriate Award even in the absence of cross-objections, there can be no harm in condoning the delay in filing cross-objections. The order of condonation of delay cannot be based on such considerations. It is open for the applicants to resort to Rule 33 of Order 41 of CPC and make a request to the court at the time of final hearing of the First Appeal for granting compensation in terms of the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Nama Padu Hudar. Therefore, even if the delay in filing the cross-objections is not condoned and the cross- objections are not taken on record, it is not as if all the doors are shut for the applicants. They are at liberty to request the court at the time of final hearing of the First Appeal to exercise powers under Rule 33 of Order 21 and grant compensation at the enhanced rate. In the circumstances, the Civil Application is hereby dismissed. [SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J]