1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.945 OF 2007 WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.946 OF 2007 Yashwant Balu Thale & Ors. .... Appellants Vs. Smt.Rukhminibai Vitthal Thale .... Respondents since deceased through legal heirs. Mr. Shreekant V. Gavand for Appellants. Ms. Gauri Godse for respondent no. 1. Coram : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J Date : 26th August, 2008 P.C. 1. These Appeals from Order are preferred against two identical orders dated 21st August, 2007 by which the learned Principal District Judge, Raigad-Alibag had rejected Civil Miscellaneous Applications No.8 of 2007 and 9 of 2007 filed by the appellants for condonation of delay in filing an application for bringing the heirs of the sole respondent on record. The respondent died on 3rd February,2006. Thereafter, on 27th February,2006, the learned Advocate for the respondent filed a purshis informing the Court about the death of respondent. 2. Thereafter since the appellants did not take any steps to bring the heirs of sole respondent No. 1 on 2 record, the learned District Judge dismissed the appeal as abated by the order dated 7th July,2006. Even thereafter the appellants kept quite until 16th January,2007, on which date they filed applications for bringing the heirs of sole respondent no.1 on record along with applications for condonation of delay. These applications for condonation of delay came to be dismissed by the impugned orders dated 21st August,2007. 3. It is the appellants case that until the filing of purshis, they were not aware about death of the respondent. Copy of the Miscellaneous Civil Application filed by the appellants before the lower appellate Court is part of the compilation of the instant appeal. In that application, the appellants have stated that after they learnt about the death of the sole respondent on filing of purshis dated 27th February,2006, they made attempts to obtain the names and addresses of the heirs of the deceased- respondent. However, the same did not become available to them until 5th December,2006. The applications filed by the appellants are silent as regards particulars of the efforts made by the appellants. The applications further state that a relative of the applicants i.e. One Gajanan Krishna had visited the village on account of a religious festival. He had knowledge as regards the heirs of the sole 3 respondent. However, at the relevant time, he did not have the addresses of the heirs, which could be collected by him and given to the appellants only on 5th July, 2007. The applications are again silent as regards the dates of the religious festival attended by the relative, Gajanan Krishna. 4. With the above facts, the lower appellate Court rejected the applications holding that there is no case whatsoever made out for condonation of delay. The lower appellate Court took note of one more fact that the appellants are close relatives of deceased- respondent. Therefore, it is difficult to believe that they were not aware of the names and addresses of the heirs of deceased-respondent. It has further observed that the appellants could have asked for the names and addresses of the heirs from the learned Advocate for the deceased- respondent when he filed purshis in the Court on 27th February,2006, informing the court about the death of the deceased- respondent. Even this step was not taken by the appellants. The last consideration of the Court is that there are as many as seven appellants and not one of them had time to attend to the court proceedings. No fault can be found with any of the observations of the learned Judge. 4 5. Mr. Gavand, the learned Advocate for the appellants relying on the decision of the Apex Court in N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy reported in A.I.R.1990 Supreme Court Page 3222 submits that the Court should take a lenient view in such matters by compensating the opposite party with costs. The facts of the decision cited are entirely different. The appellant before the Supreme Court was helpless on account of the conduct of his Advocate. On account of negligence of the Advocate, he had to take steps against the Advocate by moving the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Madras for ventilating his grievance about the conduct of Advocate. The Forum had passed final order directing payment of compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the appellant besides the costs of Rs.500/-. With these facts, the Apex Court held that the delay ought to be condoned by compensating the opposite party in such cases particularly since the appellant had secured compensation from the delequent Advocate. The instant case exhibits total negligence on the part of the appellants. There is no other person to share their blame. Hence, in the facts and circumstances, there is no scope for lenient view. 5 6. Ms. Gauri Godse, the learned Advocate for respondent No.1 submits that the decree in suit has already been executed. The appellants admit that in the course of execution of decree for possession of land, two structure of the appellants constructed on the land have already been demolished. In all these circumstances, the Appeals from Order are rejected. (SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J)