* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 78 OF 2008 IN CROSS-OBJECTIONS NO. OF 2007 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 664 OF 1994 1. Shri. Waman Daulat Pawar & Ors. ......Applicants/Orig.Resps. V/S. 1. Sau. Jijabai Bapu Deore .........Opponent/Orig.Appellant ---------------- Mr. P.B. Gujar i/by. Mr. R.A. Thorat, adv.for applicants. Mr. S.A. Sawant, adv.for respondents. CORAM :- SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED :- 18TH DECEMBER, 2009. P. C. :- 1. This Civil Application is taken out for condonation of delay of 12 years in filing the cross-objections. The application is opposed by the original appellant who is the respondent to the Civil Application. 2. The respondent filed the present Second Appeal to challenge correctness and legality of the judgment and order dated 26th October, 1993 passed by the District Court, Nasik reducing share of the appellant-respondent in the joint * 2 * family property from 1/5th to 1/8th. The appeal was filed in the year 1994, the notices were served upon the respondents in the same year. It appears that in the year 2005 original respondent no.1 died and his heirs have since been brought on record. Original respondent no.2 also died pending the appeal and his heirs have been brought on record. 3. In the present Civil Application, the applicants contend that original respondent no.1, Waman Daulat Pawar was looking after the litigation in respect of the suit properties. After his death, applicants no.1(A) to 1(C) were brought on record. The application does not disclose the year of death of Waman. On a query from the court, Mr. Gujar, the learned counsel for the applicants states that he had died in the year 2005. This would mean that from the year 1994 till 2005 there is no explanation offered for not filing the cross-objections. The application further states that after the the heirs of Waman were brought on record, they had contacted their advocate to discuss the status and merits of the matter, when they were told that cross-objections can be filed in the Second Appeal to challenge the finding given by the lower appellate court. The application is devoid of the particulars as regards the time when the heirs of Waman had discussed about the matter with their advocate. It appears that it was thereafter realised that there was no Vakalatnama filed on their behalf. This non-filing of Vakalatnama was realised only when the appellant/respondent herein served Civil Application No. 1132 of 2007 upon them. The application is * 3 * once again silent as regards the date of service of the Civil Application. Then the Vakalatnama came to be filed on 13th September, 2007 on behalf of the heirs of Waman and the cross-objections dated 26th September, 2007 prepared. The application shows that the claims made therein are absolutely vague and without the necessary particulars. The explanation offered is far from satisfactory. Hence, the Civil Application is dismissed. In view of dismissal of the Civil Application, the cross-objections tendered also stand dismissed. 4. Second Appeal is adjourned to 10/2/2009. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]