(1) CA. 3519.2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3519 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL (ST.) NO. 6539 OF 2009 Sopan S/o Narayanrao Deshmukh .. Applicant VERSUS Ramesh Digambarrao Lohagaonkar .. Respondent WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3520 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL (ST.) NO. 6539 OF 2009 Sopan S/o Narayanrao Deshmukh .. Applicant VERSUS Ramesh Digambarrao Lohagaonkar .. Respondent AND SECOND APPEAL (ST.) NO. 6539 OF 2009 Sopan S/o Narayanrao Deshmukh .. Appellant VERSUS Ramesh Digambarrao Lohagaonkar .. Respondent Mr. S.I. Nandode, Advocate for the applicant-appellant Mr. P.N. Kalani, Advocate for the respondent CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 24TH SEPTEMBER, 2009 P.C.:- 1] Civil Application no. 3519 of 2009 seeks condonation of delay of 2326 days (which means about (2) CA. 3519.2009 7-1/2 years) in filing of the Second Appeal. The appellant was the defendant in the lower Court. A suit (suit no. 303 of 1996) was filed against him for recovery of possession. The suit was decreed. The appellant then filed an appeal(Regular Civil Appeal no. 134 of 1998) before the District Court . It is the case of the appellant that at the time of filing of the appeal or thereabout, he told his lawyer that he would not be able to attend the case on every date. He said he was suffering from diabetes then. He said, his lawyer assured him that he would look after the case and inform him about the progress. After almost 10 years, in February, 2008 the appellant received a notice of execution of the decree. He then realised that his appeal had failed. It was revealed that his appeal was dismissed in 2002. The appellant said that in 2006, his son had expired in a vehicular accident. he then started suffering from with acute attacks of spondilytis. He further said that he was suffering from hypertension as well as arthritis and his Doctors had advised him to take rest. With this narration he expects the court to condone the delay. 2] I think the applicant has failed to explain why he did not attend his appeal which he filed in 1998 till it got dismissed in 2002. For a period of approximately 4 years, the appeal was pending before the District Court. The appellant has not explained (3) CA. 3519.2009 as to why during this time, he had not gone to his lawyer or to the Court even once. The excuse he expressed in the application about his illness, his son’s untimely death etc. are of events occurred beyond the year 2002. The explanation given by the applicant for the delay, is grossly unsatisfactory. I am, therefore, not inclined to entertain the appeal. Civil Application no. 3519 of 2009 stands dismissed. 3] In view of the order passed above, Civil Application no. 3520 of 2009, seeking stay and Second Appeal (st.) no. 6539 of 2009, do not survive and the same stand dismissed. Sd/- (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) arp