1 ca9836.10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9836 OF 2010 IN SECOND APPEAL (STAMP) No.12462 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Coram: Shrihri P. Davare, J. Date : 06.01.2011. Shri R.V. Gore, Advocate, for the applicants. Shri S.J. Gayake, Adv. for Respondent No.2 (absent) --- 1. Heard Shri R.V. Gore, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicants (original Plaintiffs) for condonation of delay of 2873 days in filing accompanying second appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 16.3.2002 passed by learned Extra Joint District Judge, Aurangabad, in R.C.A. No. 241/1999 and also challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.7.1999 rendered by learned II Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Aurangabad, in Special Civil Suit No. 164/1996. 2 ca9836.10 3. It is the contention of the applicants that there was miscommunication between them and their earlier Advocate in the trial court and the applicants were not aware about the judgment and decree dated 16.3.2002 passed by the learned Extra Joint District Judge, in R.C.A. No. 241 of 1999. 4. It is further contention of the applicants that they are women and illiterate and were under impression that their appeal was pending. However, when they made enquiries with their earlier Advocate in the first week of April 2010 regarding status of the case, the said Advocate stated that he had already communicated them, the result of the case after the judgment. Hence, it is submitted that thereafter the applicants obtained certified copies of judgment and filed the accompanying second appeal after delay of 2873 days. It is further contended that the aforesaid delay is not intentional, deliberate and willful and therefore, same be condoned in the interest of justice. 5. After perusal of the contents of the present application and also after hearing the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants, it is 3 ca9836.10 pertinent to note that the very contents in paragraph 3 of the application disclose that when the applicants made enquiry about status of their case with their earlier Advocate, he stated that he had already communicated result of the case to the applicants, after the judgment. Hence, it is amply clear that the earlier Advocate of the applicants regarding alleged miscommunication, does not support the contention of the applicants and accordingly, it is crystal clear that there was no miscommunication between the applicants and their earlier Advocate as contended by them. Thus, there is no substance in the contention of the applicants that the delay is not willful, deliberate and intentional. Besides that, delay of 2873 days is inordinate and same has not been explained by the applicants, properly. 6. In the result, present application bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits and hence, same stands disposed of accordingly. Consequently, leave to file second appeal is refused. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) pnd/ca9836.10 4 ca9836.10