HARLAL BHAGWANRAM JANGID Vs. SAKHUBAI LAHU JADHAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is filed by defendant no. 1 for condonation of the delay in filing the second appeal. The second appeal is filed to challenge the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court granting partition and separate possession in respect of Gat No. 155. The appellant claims to have purchased Gat No. 155 from defendant no. 2. Respondent no. 1 is the original plaintiff, respondent no.2 is original defendant no.2, who is the mother of the plaintiff and defendant nos. 3 and 4.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is 46 days delay in filing the second appeal. The reason for the delay and the steps taken to file the second appeal are explained in paragraph no. 3 of the application. The delay was unintentional; it occurred solely because time was required to consult the advocate.

(3.) The office record shows that respondent no. 1 has been served. Though served, none appear for respondent no.1. Some of the respondents remain unserved, and some have expired. The applications for bringing on record heirs and legal representatives are pending. Respondent no. 1 is the original plaintiff and thus, the only contesting party in this application. The trial court decreed the suit for partition and separate possession on 21/3/1997 in respect of the Gat No. 47 and Gat No. 133. Since the prayer for partition and separate possession of Gat No. 155 was refused, the plaintiff filed the first appeal. The first appellate court has allowed the appeal and granted partition and separate possession also in respect of Gat No. 155. None of the other defendants had challenged the trial court's decree. Hence, no purpose would be served by keeping the application pending for effecting service upon the remaining respondents.