IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA LETTER PATENT APPEAL NO. 9 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 214 OF 2008 SMT. JANI HARISHCHANDRA NAIK KHANDEPARKAR AND 5 ORS., ... Appellants Versus SHRI. RAJARAM ANANT AMONKAR AND 3 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate for the appellants. Coram:- B. P. DHARMADHIKARI & U. D. SALVI, JJ. Date:- 28th April, 2009 P.C. Heard learned Senior Advocate for the appellants. 2. The question is when the appellate authority condoned the delay and entertained the appeal and finally allowed it by directing the appellants/purchasers to be heard and whether the proceedings before lower authority could have been started de novo. Learned Senior Advocate states that the Additional Collector in its order dated 29.5.1997 has directed the appellants to be heard and after appreciating the documents and the evidence on record, the speaking order is passed. According to him, directions to hear the appellants is qualified by later part which required appreciation of documents and evidence on record and therefore no fresh trial was warranted. The contention has been appreciated by the Lower authority including the learned Single Judge and answered against appellant. It is on record that the purchaser was not party to the original proceedings and his vendor did not participate in the proceedings. The above refered appellate order has attained finality. The position was also clarified by this Court in its order dated 28.6.2006 filed in Writ Petition no. 470/05 with clarificatory order dated 18.7.2006. In the circumstances, we do not find any perversity and approach and also the approach of the learned Single Judge. 3. Before learned Single Judge the present appeal also sought leave to examine somebody else on his behalf as Jani Naik, the original claimant was not in a position to appear before this Court. This Court has granted time. Learned Senior Advocate has contended that said request was made without prejudice to right of the present appellant to challenge the impugned order. However, learned Single Judge has not recorded any such leave or liberty. 4. We are therefore not inclined to interfere in the matter. Appeal is dismissed. 5. Learned Senior Advocate has pointed out that the learned Single Judge has given time of two months to decide the proceedings before the Mamlatdar. The said time is extended in the interest of justice by two months from today. However, respondent is at liberty to approach this Court if any prejudice is being caused to him because of this extension. B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. U. D. SALVI, J. *am/-