ytGH<XURTOECW!ATTISGArah!:BII,ASPUR Singte Beneh: Hon'ble Shri Dilip Rapsaheb Deshmtikh, J. Second ADDeal No. 243 of2008 ARRettants (ApDellants) Respondents (Plaintiffi ResBondents Defendants 1. Manqj Kumar, S/o Gopal,,aged about 35 years 2. Shishupal Prasad, S/o Gopal, aged about25years : 3. Surjeet Singh, S/o Ghahshyam Prasad, agedabout22years 4. Ranvijay Singh, S/o Ghanshyam c- %asad'as?d^6ut20yea&. . All are R/o Nayapara, Titurdeeh, Ward No.19 Tahsil-Durg, Distt. Durg {CG) Versus 1, Ramashanker Pandey, StoBaijnath , Pandey, aged about 60 years, R/o Qr. No.470, Warct No.15, Nayapara, Titurdeeh.Durg (CG) 2. Gopal Tainaskar, Sfo Agrahij (wrongly mentioned Anagrahij), agedaboutSS years 3. Kanak Bai, W/o Gopal Tamaskar, aged aboytSO years : 4. Dan Bai, W/o Ghanshyam, aged about45years 5. Ghanshyam, S/o Agrahij, aged about47years Respondente 2 to 5 are R/o Nayapara,Titurdeeh,Durg(CG) Memorandum of Second apbeal under Sectioh 100 of the Civil Procedure Code ^—.———.—. — Preserit: Shri Sudhir Verma, coiunsef for the appeilants. v ORALORDER (Passed on 09.07.2008) Heardon I.A. No.01 for condonation ofdelay in filing the appeal. (2) Theappellants have preferredthissecondappeal against the judgment and decree dated 1 6.11.20Q7 passed by the District Judge, D?stt. Durg (CG) in civil appeal No.09-A/2004 passed by the IInd Civil Judge, Class-1, Distt. Durg in civil suit No.153-A/2002. The applicatton for condonation of delay is founded oh two grounds:- Priya r" 'fe- A. that, the appeltants did not have knowledge about the impugned judgment and decree dated 16.11.2007 tilt 17.1.2008 and 8. that, the appeliants were required to spend huge amount on the treatment of one Ledgi Bai, who was the defendant No.1 and therefore, they were not in a position to bear expenses of second appeal. (3) Sp far as the first ground is concerned, it has, no merit in view of the factthaf the appellants wererepresented by counsel in both the Courts below. (4) So far as the other ground retating to the prolonged treatment of Ledgi Bai, the defendant No.1 is concerned, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that Ledgi Bai, the defendant No.1 had infact died during trial before the lower Court. The appellants had thereafter preferred first appeal which was dismissed. Inthis view ofthe matter, the ground taken by the appellants in para 4 of the application for condonation of delay also does not constitute any vaiid ground for condonation of deiay in fiiing thisappeat. (6) I am of the considei-ed opinion that the appellants have not shown any sufHcient ground forcondonation of delay in filing this appeal. As a result, I.A. No.1 for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed as bared by limitation. v C.C as per ruies. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge ^^i1BrS£l^Lt»— -.—.-., _.-..