1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.02 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.03 OF 2010 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 153 OF 2010 IN SECOND APPEAL ST. NO. 24674 OF 2009 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders CORAM : P.R. BORKAR.J. DATED : 26.03.2010 Heard Mr. Sandeep S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the applicants. 2. This is an application for condonation of delay of 1755 days in filing the Second Appeal. It is admitted position that the present applicants were original defendants. The respondents have filed R.C.S. No. 584/1999 for partition and separate possession. That suit came to be dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, 2 J.D. Ashti on 18-09-2003. Thereafter, the respondents filed R.C.A. No. 180/2003 which came to be dismissed by the Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Beed on 16-10-2004. As against the same, the respondents again filed Second Appeal which was registered as 631/2006. Present applicants filed appearance in that matter on 22-02-2009 and thereafter, the said Second Appeal was dismissed at the stage of admission by this Court. It is argued that in view of the fact that within three months after the dismissal, the applicants have filed present application for condonation of delay alongwith the appeal memo. So the delay may be condoned. 3. It may noted that as stated earlier, the suit was dismissed on 18-09-2003, Regular Civil Appeal was 3 also came to be dismissed in 2004. Thereafter, the Second Appeal was registered and numbered 631/2006, so delay is from 16-10-2004 when Regular Civil Appeal was dismissed. Learned advocate stated that finding on one of the issues went against him and it is held that some of the property was acquired by Rahibai. It may noted that the applicants have appeared in Second Appeal filed by the respondents on 22-02-2009 and same came to be dismissed on 27-07-2009. So, there was enough time of five months even to file Cross Objection. 4. Not being satisfied with the reasons given for condonation of delay, this application deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. 5. Civil Application NO. 3 of 2010 4 does not survive, in view of the dismissal of Civil Application No. 2 of 2010 for condonation of delay and the same is disposed of accordingly. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] sut/MAR10/ca2.10