1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION No. 20/2006 in S.A.(ST) NO:17424/2005 (SHRI Naktu Zingar Meshram vs. Madhusudan Tiwari and 17 others) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Mr S S Wankhede Adv.h/for Mr Bhattad for the applicant Coram : A.P.BHANGALE, J. Dated : 12 th November, 2009 Heard learned counsel for the applicant. 2. It appears that in the present case, originally Regular Civil Suit No. 203/1999 filed by Madhusudan Tiwari and others against Naktu Zingar Meshram was decreed with costs. The present appellant (original defendant ) was directed to deliver vacant possession of the suit land to the plaintiff within two months as plaintiff was declared as owner of the suit field. An inquiry was also ordered into the mesne profits under Order 20 Rule 12 of the CPC. 3. The judgment and decree was challenged before the 4th Ad-hoc Addl. District Judge, Bhandara who, by judgment and order dated 5.7.2005 in Regular Civil Appeal No.56/2004 by a reasoned judgment and order dismissed the appeal. The appellant was represented by Shri Shambharkar Advocate in the the first Appellate Court; while he was represented by Advocate D S Kate in the trial Court. The concurrent 2 judgments and orders passed by the Courts below were sought to be challenged by means of this Second Appeal after period of limitation has expired. According to the applicant/(appellant) delay of two days in filing the Second Appeal had occurred on account of mistake committed by the counsel in counting the days to file Second Appeal. In fact, it appears that this application for condonation of delay was filed on 7.12.2005. The judgment sought to be impugned was passed on 5.7.2005 and according to the appellant, decree was signed on 11.7.2005. Although it is contended that the counsel committed mistake in counting the days for a period for limitation, the application is not supported by an affidavit of the concerned counsel, who committed such a mistake, in spite of the fact that this application is pending since 7.12.2005. Hence delay cannot be condoned. Application is rejected. JUDGE. sahare