1 CA9478/2010 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Civil Application No. 9478 of 2010 (Bhalchandra Sukale (Patil) & Anr. v. Madhavrao Sukale (Patil) & Ors.) in Second Appeal St No. 13300 of 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr. S.S. Choudhari, Advocate for the applicants Mr. V.S. Undre, Advocate for respondent Nos. 4A & 4B PER COURT : 1. This Civil Application is moved for condonation of delay of 3973 days in filing of the second appeal. 2. It is common ground that respondent Nos.4A & 4B’s mother Banubai had filed the suit for partition and separate possession of her share in the ancestral property against the present appellants’ predecessors. She claimed 1/8th share in the suit property. One of her grievance was that the predecessors of the appellants refused to maintain her though they were under obligation to do so. The suit was decreed in 1991 and the decree of partition and separate possession of 1/8th share was granted in her favour. The predecessors of the present applicants filed appeal against such decree, but that appeal was dismissed on 17th March, 1999. The 2 CA9478/2010 predecessors of the present applicants did not file any second appeal. It is the case of present applicants that soon thereafter Banubai / Decree Holder agreed not to execute the decree because certain compromise took place. This however was not recorded anywhere. Banubai did not start execution of the decree till her death. She died on 14th April, 2003.Thereafter, her daughters/respondent Nos.4A & 4B started the execution in December, 2008. After receiving the notices of the execution, the present applicants filed this second appeal along with the present application seeking condonation of delay. I am not inclined to condone the delay, because the question as to whether a compromise took place between the applicants/their predecessors/judgment debtors and Banubai could be decided only in the execution Court. Deciding such a question of law would be beyond scope of present application seeking condonation of delay. The application stands dismissed. 3. In view of dismissal of CA 9478/2010, Civil Application No. 9477 of 2010 stands disposed of. 21st June, 11 ( A.V.NIRGUDE, J. ) SRM/