1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR APPEAL AGAINST ORDER NO. 62/2010 1. Bilkis Bano Rahim Khan, 2. Iqbal Rahim Khan, 3. Izaz Rahim Khan, 4. Naseem Khatoon Rahim Khan, 5. Farhim @ Faimida Rahim Khan 6. Taslim Rahim Khan 7. Rahman Rahim Khan 8 Shamsher Khan Inayat Khan, R/o Akola APPELLANTS ...VERSUS... 1. Fatambi Sk. Mehboob 2. Daood Khan Sher Khan, Akola RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri A.S.Chandurkar, Counsel for Petitioner. Shri S.R.Deshpande, for respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 20 th JULY, 2010. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT 1 Heard finally. 2. Being aggrieved by decree in R.C.S. No. 201/1994, R.C.A. No. 82/2003 was preferred by the present appellant. In between, Writ Petition No. 1156/2005 was also entertained, wherein by order dated 16th January, 2006, the appellant was directed to deposit Rs.5000/- as a condition for continuation of stay granted by the High Court pending the appeal within four weeks from 16th January, 2006. The appellant was also directed to supply private paper book within four weeks to the learned District Judge at Akola and thereafter the learned District Judge was directed to dispose of appeal within six months. 3. The record illustrate, from 7th September 2006, the matter is adjourned for final hearing as the appellant herein moved applications Exh. 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30 and Exh. 35. 3 4. It is obvious, the appellant demonstrated laxity in attending the matter, may be deliberate, as the decree is in respect of possession. The grievance of the plaintiff is certainly justifiable that the fruits of the decree is awaited from 1994. 5. In spite of all the odds at the behest of the appellant, the fact remains, the rights of the appellant desired to be addressed and agitated before the learned District Judge should not be crippled and squeezed on the mistake that has happened on getting matter adjourned from time to time. It may be on occasion, the advocate was not keeping well or he wanted to prepare. 6. With all said and done, the order of dismissing the RCA No. 82/03 is set aside and the appeal is restored to original poisition, however on following conditions. (a) the appellant to furnish private paper book before the 4 learned District Judge within three weeks, if not already complied with; (b) the appellant to pay directly to the plaintiff costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) upto 10th August, 2010. (c) the appellant shall not seek any adjournment before the learned District Judge. (d) the learned District Judge shall ensure to complete the hearing of the appeal upto 30th September, 2010. 7. If any of the above terms are not complied with, the learned District Judge shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders in said R.C.A. No. 82/2003. A.O. allowed to the extent as above. No costs. JUDGE Rvjalit