1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CA NO.9509 OF 2009 IN FAST NO.16858/2009 (IFCI LTD. VS. Omprakash Sitaram Agrawal and others) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. S.V.Advant, Adv., for the applicant. Mr. P.M.Shah, Senior Counsel, for Mr. A.B.Kale, Advocate, for respondent no.1. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE: 4/1/2010 P.C.:- 1. Heard. The appellant/applicant seeks to condone delay of 1865 days caused in filing the First Appeal. 2. The controversy revolves to filing of Special Civil Suit No.190/2000 for specific performance of contract before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon, between Omprakash Agrawal as plaintiff and Shrikant Maniyar as defendant. The appellant herein claims that its substantial rights in the 2 immoveable property are involved. There was equitable mortgage of agricultural land Gat No.179/2 admeasuring 1 H. 86 R and land Gat No.179/1B admeasuring 81 R situated at village Bambhori Tq.Dharangaon, dist. Jalgaon in favour of Bank of India. 3. The aspect in relation to equitable mortgage is not accepted by respondent herein, as the document is yet to be placed on record and legally proved. 4. It was pointed out by Mr.P.M.Shah, learned Senior Counsel that even if we go by the record, it is apparent that as on 19th Jan.,2009, the appellant had received communication from Bank of India informing about pendency of the execution proceedings concerning the mortgaged properties and still no steps are taken in due course. 5. Though I find that after 19th Jan.,2009, momentum is not effected as was expected from the 3 appellant, however, the fact remains that, collection of the documents, including certified copies, taking advice has also consumed time. One cannot be oblivious, the appellant has specifically come with a case of collusive decree of specific performance between the original plaintiff and original defendant, referred above. Without adverting to merits of the so called colussiveness of the decree, the fact remains that the appellant herein has properly explained the delay occasioned in the matter. Hence, application allowed. The delay is condoned. The appellant to pay costs of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs.twenty five thousand) to the respondent within four weeks. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... agp/ca9509-09