1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.264 OF 2008 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (ST) NO.23240 OF 2008 Bojappa Narasappa Kurle (since deceased through .. Applicants Legal Heirs) V/s Sidram Bhimanna Mane & anr. ..Respondents Mr.A.B.Tajane, Advocate, for the applicants None for the respondents CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATE : 19TH MARCH, 2009 P.C. . By the above Civil Application, the applicant prays for condonation of a delay of about two months caused in filing the above Civil Revision Application. The office note however, indicates that the delay is of 6years and 330 days. The applicants have calculated the said delay of two months on the basis that they have acquired the knowledge of the decree only on 25th March, 2008, when they 2 received a notice of Regular Darkhast No.283 of 2004. 2. The father of the applicants was the original defendant in Regular Civil Suit No.803 of 1995 filed by the respondent No.1 herein for possession of the suit premises namely Municipal House No.721- A, City Survey No.3490, T.P.S.No.3, Beder Pool, Solapur and for recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profit. The said suit came to be decreed on 30th June, 1999, and the defendant was directed to handover vacant possession of the suit premises and further directed to remove the structure of two rooms newly constructed by the original defendant on the open land adjacent to the suit premises on or before 30th September, 1999. Against the said decree dated 30th June, 1999, passed by the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Solapur the defendant filed Regular Civil Appeal No.348 of 1999 in the Court of the learned District Judge, Solapur. The said Regular Civil Appeal came to be dismissed by the learned District Judge, Solapur by the Judgment and Order dated 6th November, 2003, and the decree passed by the Trial Court came to be confirmed. Much after the said Judgment of the Lower Appellate 3 Court in the said Regular Civil Appeal No. 348 of 1999, the original defendant i.e. the father of the present applicants died on 10th February, 2006. The instant Civil Revision Application has been filed by the applicants on 8th September, 2008. 3. In support of their case for condonation of a delay, it is the case of the applicants that their father, who was the original defendant was sick for many years, his one leg fractured and he was bed ridden. It is the case of the applicants that they were not aware of the proceedings until they received a notice of the Regular Darkhast No.283 of 2004 some time on 25th March, 2008. It is further sought to be contended on behalf of the applicants that they are very poor persons working as labourers and that they survive on the meagre income which they earn from daily casual labour. It is further sought to be contended that only after arranging money from friends and relatives that they have made arrangements for filing the present Civil Revision Application. 4. Though the notice in the above Civil Application has been issued, none appears for the respondents. The office noting indicates 4 that the notice on behalf of the respondent No.1 was accepted by the respondent No.2 – wife stating that the respondent No.1 is mentally disturbed and absconding since long. 5. It is, therefore, necessary to consider whether the applicants have made out sufficient cause for condoning the delay of six years 330 days in filing the appeal in the absence of the respondents. The case of the applicants is that they became aware of the decree passed against them only on 25th March, 2008, is impossible to accept. It is pertinent to note that the applicants' father was alive till 10th February, 2006. The Judgment and Order was passed by the Lower Appellate Court on 6th November, 2003. It is not the case of the applicants that their father was immobile. The fact that the appeal was filed against the decree passed by the Trial Court indicates that probably with the assistance of the applicants that the said appeal came to be filed by the father of the applicants. It is not the case of the applicants that they were not residing in the suit premises so as not to be aware of the pending proceedings filed by the landlord. It would, therefore, have to be held that for the purpose 5 of calculating the delay, the date of the decree passed by the Appeal Court i. e. 6th November, 2003 would have to be taken into consideration and therefore, the office has rightly calculated that the delay is of six years and 330 days. In the fact situation of the matter where there is absolutely no material on record so as to justify the said delay of six years and 330 days, no relief can be granted to the applicants in the above Civil Application. The fact that the respondents are not appearing in the above Civil Application though, they have been served indicates that probably they also do not have the wherewithal to go on with the litigation. The applicants, therefore, cannot be given advantage of the absence of the respondents. In my view, therefore, the applicants have failed to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay of six years and 330 days. The above Civil Application is accordingly rejected. 6. In view of the fact that the delay has not been condoned, Civil Revision Application filed by the applicants does not survive and in view thereof, the decree passed by the Courts below stands confirmed. The learned counsel for the applicants therefore, seeks 6 reasonable time to vacate the suit premises. The applicants are granted six months time to vacate the suit premises on all of them furnishing the usual Undertaking to this Court to be filed within a period of four weeks from date. In case the Undertaking is not filed within the period stipulated by this order, the period of six months granted to vacate would not enure to the benefit of the applicants and the respondents would, thereafter, be entitled to execute the decree in accordance with law. (R.M.SAVANT, J.)