( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5339 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 8283 OF 2010 Aba s/o. Sitaram Pawde (Died) through L.Rs. .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5351 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 9922 OF 2010 Sopan Nivrutti Shinde .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents Shri A.R. Nikam, Advocate for the applicants. Mrs. R.K. Ladda, A.G.P. for respondent/State. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 22.04.2010 P.C. :- 1. Heard Adv. Shri A.R. Nikam for the applicants. These are two applications for condonation of delay of 1085 and 1114 days in filing First Appeals against Land ( 2 ) Acquisition References decided by the Reference Courts. The reason given for condonation of delay is that the advocate for the claimants have not informed them the decision of the Land References and secondly that the applicants were landless and could not make arrangement of money for Court fees and other expenses for filing the appeals. The learned advocate for the applicants has relied upon orders passed by this Court on 23.11.2009 in Civil Application No. 11932 of 2008 in First Appeal (St) No. 21557 of 2008 and Civil Application No. 11933 of 2008 in First Appeal (St) No. 21553 of 2008 and stated that similar reasons were accepted as sufficient and the delay was condoned on imposition of costs. In said matters also the delays were of 556 and 799 days. 2. It may be noted that it is not question of length of delay, but it is question of genuineness and satisfaction of the Court regarding reasons for delay. It is very easy to blame advocates for delay and this tendency has been increasing day by day for taking advantage of the Supreme Court ruling that the clients should not suffer for the fault of advocates. It is nowhere stated in the applications that immediately after the conclusion of evidence and arguments, ( 3 ) the Reference Court has not delivered judgment. So, the clients cannot avoid their responsibility and place blame at the door of the advocate every time and say that the advocate has not communicated the decision. The clients also owe duty to go to the advocate and ascertain decision within reasonable time. In these cases the delay is for unreasonable ground. I am not satisfied with other reasons given in the applications. In fact, other reason regarding financial difficulties would come up only when the applicants have knowledge of the decision but they want to blame the advocate. 3. Not being satisfied with the reasons given in the applications, the applications for condonation of delay are dismissed. 4. Issue Court fees refund certificates as per rules. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2010/APR10/ca5339.10