1 C.A. 10883/2010 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10883/2010 IN SECOND APPEAL ST. NO. 14402/2010 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 14th Sept., 2011. Mr. M.P. Gude, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. V.V. Tamke, Advocate for respondent sole. 1. Heard. 2. This application is seeking condonation of delay of 1869 days occurred in filing of the Second Appeal. The applicant was plaintiff and sought partition of the ancestral property by filing this suit against her brother. She claimed ½ share in the suit property. At the trial stage, her claim was decreed fully. But the learned judge of the first appellate Court reduced her share to 1/3rd. This occurred on 24th December, 2004. Thereafter, according to the applicant, she went to Pandharpur and stayed there for quite some time and therefore, she was prevented from filing an appeal against the impugned judgment and decree of 2004. The learned advocate appearing for the respondent, 2 C.A. 10883/2010 opposing the application, handed over to me a certified copy of written statement filed by the applicant in another Regular Civil Suit No. 486/2005. This was a suit filed by the present respondent against the applicant and others for perpetual injunction. The applicant filed the written statement in that suit, a copy of which is now brought on record. In this written statement, which was filed on 08/12/2005 almost one year after the date of impugned decree, the applicant clearly stated that she secured 1/3rd share of the suit land and she even secured possession of the same. She questioned the propriety of the suit filed for perpetual injunction etc.. This written statement thus makes it clear that the applicant was quit happy with the impugned decree which awarded her 1/3rd share in the suit property. She even took possession of her 1/3rd share according to her and is happily using the same. In view of this, the reason mentioned in the application for seeking condonation of delay is not at convincing and so the application deserves to be rejected. The application is dismissed. [A.V. NIRGUDE,J.] ts k/2011/Sept14/ca10883.10