KANTILAL LALCHAND BORA Vs. AMRATRAO @ AMRUTRAO SHANKARRAO DESHMUKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Applicants-original defendants have filed this application to condone the delay of 325 days caused in filing the second appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge-1, Ambajogai thereby dismissing their RCA No. 21 of 2010 challenging the decree passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ambajogai in Special Civil Suit No. 41 of 2001 filed by respondent- original plaintiff.

(2.) Mr. Sawant, Advocate for the applicants submitted that the respondent filed aforesaid suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction against applicants in respect of Municipal House No. 446/4, City survey No. 3847 of Parali Vaijyanath, Dist. Beed and said suit was decreed on 26-04-2007 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ambajogai. Aggrieved by the said decree applicants filed aforesaid appeal in the court of District Judge, Ambajogai against the respondent and that was dismissed on 13-08-2018. It is submitted that Kantilal Lalchand Bora- applicant No. 1 who is brother of other applicants was looking after affairs of joint family consisting of the applicants. He handled entire litigation throughout. After taking certified copies from the District Court applicant No. 1- Kantilal Lalchand Bora suffered many crises in the family on account of personal and medical reasons. His wife is suffering from various medical ailments and he was to look after her on account of her frequent hospitalization. Therefore, he was consistently busy and engrossed in his personal and medical problems on account of ill- health of his wife and could not look after the litigation after obtaining the certified copies. It is further submitted that Shantilal Lalchand Bora applicant No. 2 who was essentially relying upon the wisdom of Kantilal Lalchand Bora was throughout lamenting under impression that his brother will take necessary steps to pursue the matter before the higher forum on account of dismissal of their appeal. However, on account of above said reasons Kantialal could not take necessary steps to file second appeal before the High Court. So also, Shantilal was unaware regarding the steps to be taken to pursue further litigation. He was advised by the local Advocate to approach and seek guidance from the Advocate of High Court for filing the appeal. Accordingly, he approached the Advocate in the High Court. However, delay has been caused in filing the appeal. It is further submitted that delay caused is neither intentional nor deliberate. Learned counsel further submitted that valuable statutory rights of the applicants in the suit property is the subject matter of the second appeal as the applicants' claim to be registered owners of suit property on the basis of registered sale deed executed in their favour. Thus, it is submitted that the delay may be condoned and appeal be registered by allowing the application.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the applicants to support his aforesaid submissions has relied upon the decision of this court dated 02-07-2019 in civil application No. 7207 of 2016 in Second Appeal (st.) No. 35417 of 2015 [Coram: V. L. Achliya, J.] and particularly on paragraph No. 8 of the said order, which reads thus: