IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 53 OF 2009 ESPERANCA MASCARENHAS AND ANR., ... Petitioners Versus MR. NELSON DE MIRANDA(DEC.) AND 15 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. Vivek Rodrigues, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. M.B. Da Costa, Senior Advocate with Mr. J.A. Lobo, Advocate for the Respondents No. 2 to 5. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 3rd March, 2009 ORAL ORDER: Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 10/10/2008 by which the petitioners' application for condonation of delay in preferring an appeal against the judgment/decree dated 28/08/1993 has been rejected. 2. The petitioners are the spouses of respondents nos. 7 and 10, respectively, who were brought on record upon the death of respondent no.1. It appears that the petitioners who were their spouses were not brought on record. 3. Petitioners filed an application for condonation of delay of 14 years, 6 months in preferring an appeal against judgment/decree dated 28/08/1993 and, apparently, after their spouses, the said respondents had exhausted all remedies available to them. The said respondents are sought to be evicted from the suit house. The petitioners approached the executing Court with their application dated 15/03/1999 but the same was dismissed by the learned executing Court. The petitioners did not challenge the order dismissing the said application. The petitioners then filed another application dated 13/03/2007, apparently under Order 21, Rule 101 and that too came to be dismissed and the said order of dismissal was again not challenged by the petitioners. Now, the petitioners found a novel method of filing an appeal and, therefore, filed an application for condonation of delay. 4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners was not able to point out to any fact averred by the petitioners, as to when they came to know about the said judgment/decree dated 28/08/2003. There is no doubt that the learned trial Court ought to have considered the application for condonation of delay first or the application for condonation of delay along with the locus standi of the appellants to file appeal, but, the learned trial Court proceeded on merits and disposed of the application on the ground that the petitioners had no locus standi. Needless to observe, in the absence of an averment as to when the petitioners came to know about the judgment/decree dated 28/03/1993, the petitioners' application for condonation of delay could not have been considered by the learned appellate Court. Moreover, there was no explanation for delay from the date of judgment/decree till 15/03/1999 and again 13/03/2007. It is only upon the failure on their part to stall the execution proceedings, that the petitioners chose a novel method of filing an appeal along with an application for condonation of delay. 5. This petition is nothing but an attempt on the part of the petitioners, to delay the eviction of their spouses i.e. respondents no. 7 and 10. Consequently, I find there is no merit in this petition. The same is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/-. N. A. BRITTO, J. NH