{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 632 OF 2011 Kamalbai w/o Sopan Kadam and others Appellants Versus Bhagirathibai w/o Karbhari Gaikwad and others Respondents Mr.S.G.Thombre, advocate for appellants CORAM : S.S.SHINDE, J. DATE : 30 th November, 2011 PER COURT: 1 Heard learned Counsel for appellants. 2 This Second Appeal takes exception to the order below Exhibit-1 dated 30.07.2011, passed by District Judge-1, Aurangabad. By the impugned order, application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is rejected. 3 Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that husband of appellant no.1 died during pendency of the suit. Since the appellant no.1 was to look after her husband, she could not take steps to file the appeal within time. Learned Counsel invited {2} my attention to the contents of the application filed for condonation of delay before the lower appellate Court and submitted that the right of filing of the appeal and further prosecuting the said appeal should not get defeated by technicalities. The lower appellate Court should have adopted liberal approach while considering the prayer for condonation of delay. Learned Counsel also invited my attention to the grounds stated in the Second Appeal and submitted that the Second Appeal deserves consideration. He further submits that execution proceedings are filed by the original plaintiff and, therefore, while entertaining the Second Appeal, execution proceedings may be stayed. 4 I have given due consideration to the submissions of the learned Counsel for appellants. The grounds taken in the application for condonation of delay before the lower appellate Court are contrary to the factual position. In fact, the appellants herein did participate in the proceedings before the trial Court and contested the suit. Not only that, defendants have filed different written statements in the suit. Therefore, one of the ground taken in the application for condonation of delay that appellants were not aware about the outcome of the appeal and only after notice in the execution proceeding is received, they became aware, is afterthought. The person approaching the Court should approach with clean hands, however, the appellants have not approached {3} the Court with clean hands. The reasons stated in the application are far from the truth. Therefore, the lower appellate Court, while dismissing the application for condonation of delay, in para 6, has observed that the original defendants - present appellants herein have contested the suit and, therefore, it cannot be said that they were not aware about the judgment and decree of the Civil Court. There is also observation in the said paragraph that attempt is being made by the appellants to prolong the pending execution proceedings. It is also observed in para 6 that in the suit, other defendants have engaged separate advocates than of their father. Therefore, the stand taken by the appellants that they were not aware about the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court cannot be accepted. 5 There is delay of more than one year and sixty days. Apart from not having sufficient cause in the application, appellants have not disclosed true facts in the application for condonation of delay. Therefore, the view taken by the lower appellate Court is in consonance with the material brought on record. It is also relevant to mention that the plaintiff is real sister of original defendants no.1 to 4 and at the time of filing of the suit, her age was 75 years. Therefore, since this Court is not convinced to condone the delay, the other points raised in the Second Appeal need not be gone into. This order is passed in the peculiar facts of this case since the appellants have not stated true and correct {4} facts in the application for condonation of delay. 6 For the reasons aforesaid, the Second Appeal deserves no consideration. On the perusal of the grounds stated in the Second Appeal, none of the grounds appeal to this Court that there is any substantial question of law so as to consider the Second Appeal. 7 Second Appeal stands rejected. Consequently, Civil Application No.14493 of 2011 stands rejected. S.S.SHINDE JUDGE adb/sa63211