MUNJAJI Vs. SUNIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the applications have been filed for condoning the delay of 282 days in filing second appeals respectively.

(2.) Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. R.N. Dhorde instructed by learned Advocate Mr. R.J. Nirmal for applicants, learned Advocate Mr. P.N. Kalani for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in Civil Application No. 11875 of 2019 and learned Advocate Mr. S.S. Rathi for sole respondent in Civil Application No. 11874 of 2019 and for respondent Nos. 5/1, 5/4 and 6 in Civil Application Nos. 11875 of 2019.

(3.) It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the applicants that the respondent in Civil Application No. 11874 of 2019 is the original plaintiff, who had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 82 of 2008 for recovery of possession, which came to be decreed on 4/9/2014 and applicants in Civil Application No. 11875 of 2019 are original plaintiffs, who had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 73 of 2009 for declaration and injunction, which came to be dismissed on 3/8/2012. The present applicants preferred Regular Civil Appeal Nos. 136 of 2014 and 180 of 2012 respectively challenging the respective judgment and decrees. However, both the appeals have been dismissed. Now, they want to file second appeals, however, there is delay of 282 days. It was the contention of the respondent in Civil Application No. 11874 of 2019 i.e. original plaintiff that the suit property was purchased by way of registered sale deed and by way of family partition, the suit property came to the share of plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 82 of 2008. Plaintiff contended that the defendants have encroached upon his land to the extent of 42 R and, therefore, he sought possession in that, whereas in Regular Civil Suit No. 73 of 2009, it was contended that the plaintiffs possession over the suit land has been obstructed by the defendants. Vital rights of the defendants are involved who had resisted the claim of the plaintiffs. After the two separate judgments were pronounced on 23/7/2018, the applicants applied for the certified copies and got those copies on 21/8/2018. The applicants are poor and could not arrange for the amount of the Court fees. The delay that has been caused is unintentional and, therefore, taking into consideration the liberal view that is required to be adopted, the delay deserves to be condoned.