GOTIRAM Vs. PRAVIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This second appeal takes exception to the impugned judgment and order dated 30 09 2010 passed by the District Judge 1 Kopargaon in Delay M.A. No. 41 of 2005.

(2.) The appellant herein filed application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 31 08 2002 in R.C.S. No. 45 of 2000. One of the important ground taken in the application for condonation of delay was that, the appellant herein who is original defendant No.1 was persuaded by the original plaintiffs for compromise and therefore, the appellant did not take timely steps for filing the appeal before the lower appellate Court. Another ground which is agitated by the Counsel for the appellant is that, even Darkhast filed by the respondents is in the year 2004. The learned Counsel for the appellant would urge that, out of three persons from the said village, one Mr. Bhavar did file affidavit stating that, the appellant was persuaded by the respondents herein for compromise. Therefore, according to the Counsel for the appellant, the lower appellate Court taking liberal view in the matter should have condoned the delay.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents i.e. original plaintiffs submitted that, there was inordinate delay in filing the appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the trial Court. The appellant was aware about such judgment and decree since he has appeared in the Execution Proceedings. It is further submitted that, in the application for condonation of delay, there is hardly any explanation for such delay has been occurred in filing the appeal. It is submitted that, since the appellant is in possession of the suit property, an attempt has been made by the appellant to seek adjournments in Darkhast Proceedings and also the appeal is filed belatedly. The learned Counsel for the respondents further submits that, the appellant was supposed to explain the delay in filing the appeal properly.