1 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1077/2003 IN SECOND APPEAL St.NO.6608/2003 Hausabai Nana Zugar. ..Applicant -VERSUS- Smt.Shantabai Sadashiv Zugar and others. ..Respondents ......... Mr.Amit Borkar, Advocate for the applicant. Mr.F.A.Mulla i/b Mr.S.M.Kamble, Advocate for the respondent No.1. Mr.M.R.Suryawanshi, Advocate for the respondents Nos.3 and 4. .......... CORAM : A.P.DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 04th MARCH, 2009. P.C. : 1. The matter was listed on 21.01.2009 when by way of last chance six weeks' time was granted to the applicant to take steps to bring the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No.2 on record. No steps are taken. Thus, the appeal stands dismissed as abated against the respondent No.2. 2. By the present application, the applicant/appellant is seeking condonation of delay of about three years in filing the Second 2 Appeal. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for partition and separate possession of the land and house properties and also claimed half share in the offerings to the deity. The Trial Court decreed the suit and hence, aggrieved thereby, the present applicant filed the first appeal before the District Judge. The first Appellate Court concurring with the view taken by the Trial Court dismissed the appeal. It is to be noted that the first appeal came to be dismissed on 31.12.1999 and belatedly sometime in the year 2003 the present Second Appeal is filed and the same is pending for consideration on account of pending of the present application for condonation of delay for last about three years. 3. Turning to the merits of the application, vague averments are made to the effect that after dismissal of the first appeal, the applicant was engaged in compromise talks with the respondents and thus, there is no deliberate and intentional delay in filing the appeal. The averments made in paragraph No.5 of the application are denied by filing the affidavit by the respondents No.3 and 4. No sufficient cause has been shown to condone the delay of about three years. It is most unlikely that the present non-applicants would be engaged in compromise talks with the applicant who had succeeded in two Courts. The case of the applicant that he was engaged in compromise talks which resulted in delay of three years and hence delay ought to be condoned, cannot be accepted. Hence, the application stands rejected. 3 JUDGE