1 (CAS956.11) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 956 OF 2011 IN SECOND APPEAL (STAMP) NO.13575 OF 2011 Mukund Rakhamaji Patil since deceased through Lrs 1 Kashinath Mukund Patil and others .....Applicants. V/s Indira Gopala Patil and others ..... Respondents. Mr. I.V. Sutar for the applicants. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 5th August, 2011 P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants. 2. This is an application filed by the applicants for condonation of delay of 28 years and 288 days. According to the applicants, a suit was filed by their father in 1976 seeking injunction against the respondents’ father. The said suit was decreed by the Trial Court. Against this order, appeal was preferred by the respondents’ father and the 2 (CAS956.11) appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in in the applicants’ father’s suit was set aside. However, no further appeal was filed by the father of the applicants. Thereafter, present applicants filed a suit seeking same reliefs against the respondents on 30/1/2011 and in the Written Statement, the Defendants contended that the suit filed by the father of the applicants had been dismissed in 1982 and according to the applicants they came to know about the said dismissal of the appeal after Written Statement was filed by the respondents herein. It is therefore submitted that the delay caused may be condoned. 3. It is not possible to accept the said submission made by the learned Counsel for the applicants. No explanation has been given as to why no appeal was filed by father of the applicants. Appeal was allowed and the decree was set aside. Sufficient cause, therefore, has not been shown in condoning delay. Hence, application for condonation of delay is dismissed. (V.M. KANADE, J.) 3 (CAS956.11)