ndm 1 20--caf.6185.08.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6185 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL (Stamp) NO. 29480 OF 2008 Shakuntala Janardhan Jedhe. ... APPLICANT Vs. Maruti Ganu Shingan and ors. ... RESPONDENTS ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Mr. Tejpal S. Ingale for Applicant. Mr. Umesh Mankapure for Respondent Nos. 1 to 6. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ CORAM : C.L. PANGARKAR, J. DATE : 12 th JANUARY, 2010. P.C. 1 This is an application for condonation of delay in preferring First Appeal. 2 The delay is said to be nine years and more than 200 days. The Appellant had instituted proceedings under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act for claiming apportionment of the compensation that was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The said reference came to be ndm 2 20--caf.6185.08.sxw decided by the Civil Judge on 23.02.1999. The learned Judge of the reference Court found that the present Appellant was already married and there was no evidence of there being a divorce between her first husband and therefore, her marriage with Janardhan was not valid. It was found by him that no evidence with regard to the custom of having a mutual divorce was proved by the present Appellant. Holding so, the learned Judge rejected the reference. 3 Before this reference case was filed, she had also instituted Civil Suit No. 265 of 1992 , which later came to numbered as Special Civil Suit No. 37 of 2001. The said suit was for partition and separate possession of the property of Janardhan with whom she claimed that she was married. The said suit was dismissed by the trial Court against which an appeal was preferred before the District Judge. The learned District Judge, who heard the appeal, dismissed the appeal on 06.09.2008. Both the suit and the appeal were dismissed on the ground that the finding as recorded by the reference Court in Land Reference No. 3 of 1997 was binding on the parties and therefore, plaintiff was not ndm 3 20--caf.6185.08.sxw entitled to any share. The Appellant has preferred Second Appeal No. 36 of 2009 challenging those judgments and decrees. The Second Appeal was filed on 05.12.2008 while the First Appeal came to be filed on 5 th April, 2003. It is in this background that the Appellant seeks to condone the delay. 4 It is contended by the Appellant – applicant that when the land reference was decided, she was advised that she may get justice in the Civil Suit, which she had already instituted and therefore, there was no need for her to prefer an appeal against the decision in the reference case. 5 The delay as stated earlier is more than nine years and that is sought to be condoned. 6 The learned counsel for Appellant – applicant submits before me that it is due to the ill advise given to her that she did not prefer an appeal against the decision in the reference case. He submits that she was advised that she would get justice when her civil suit would be decided by the Court. It is contended that it is under that impression that ndm 4 20--caf.6185.08.sxw the appeal was not preferred against the decision by the reference Court. The learned counsel for non applicant – respondent submits that this can hardly be a ground for condonation of delay. 7 The law is well settled that any length of the delay can be condoned by the Court, provided sufficient cause shown by the applicant. The question therefore is whether, in the instant case the applicant has shown sufficient cause for not preferring an appeal within time. 8 In the context, I find that the cause put up by the applicant is certainly not sufficient. The reason is that, if she was advised that she would get justice after the decision in the Civil Suit is rendered, it was necessary for her atleast to have preferred this appeal after the Civil Suit itself was decided. Instead of doing that, the First Appeal was preferred and there is no explanation why this appeal was not preferred after the decision in the Civil Suit was rendered by the Civil Judge in Special Civil Suit No. 37 of 2001. It is only after the matter came to the High Court that the Appellant felt need to prefer an appeal. It is difficult to assume that wrong advise was given to her. The applicant has chosen not to prefer ndm 5 20--caf.6185.08.sxw an appeal against the said decision for nine years. There is no sufficient cause shown by the applicant as stated earlier. The cause as tried to be made out cannot be said to be sufficient cause, in the background of the fact that the appeal was not preferred after the decision in the Civil Suit. I, therefore, find that the application for condonation of delay is liable to be rejected, it is so rejected. [ C.L. PANGARKAR, J ]