04. CAS 599 of 2022.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION (CAS) NO.599/2022 IN SECOND APPEAL ST. NO.2800/2022 Ramkrishna Anandrao Mujbaile and others ...Versus… Sau. Saroj Gulabrao Mahakalkar and others - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- ------------ - Mr. K.R. Lule, Advocate for applicants/appellants Mr. P.R. Agrawal, Ms A.R. Sharma, Ms S.H. Bhagat, Advocates for respondent No.7 CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATE : 04/03/2026 1. Appellant No.1 is the son of appellant No.2. Appellant No.2 has expired and his other legal representatives are brought on record as his legal representatives. The appellants had filed a suit for specific performance of contract being Special Civil Suit No.1/2001. The said suit was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Wardha vide judgment and decree dated 18/02/2009. 2. Aggrieved by dismissal of suit, the plaintiffs preferred appeal being Regular Civil Appeal No.284/2010. The learned District Judge-1, Wardha vide judgment and decree dated 30/11/2017 has partly allowed the appeal by granting decree for refund of earnest money instead of decree for specific performance. The present appeal is filed challenging the aforesaid decree. 2026:BHC-NAG:3640 04. CAS 599 of 2022.odt 2 3. There is a delay of around 745 days caused in filing second appeal. The delay is sought to be explained that the appellant No.2 (father) was looking after the litigation and that due to his ill-health, he was not in a position to keep track of the matter and therefore, was not aware about the judgment and decree delivered by the learned District Judge-1, Wardha. 4. As stated above, the appellant No.1 is the son of the appellant No.2. It appears from the addresses given in the cause-title that the appellants are residing together. It cannot be accepted that the appellant No.1 was not aware about the development in the first appeal. The explanation that for a period of over two years, the appellant No.1 did not contact his Advocate to make enquiries about the appeal, is difficult to accept. 5. It needs to be mentioned that the appeal arises out of specific performance of contract, which was executed on 25/09/2001. In addition to delay of 745 days, which is computed by excluding Covid-19 lock down period, there is further delay of around two years in filing of the appeal. Although this period is required to be excluded, in view of Covid-19 lock down, the fact that appeal is sought to be filed after a period of four years from the date of decision by the learned first Appellate Court, cannot be ignored. Moreover, after filing of the appeal, the application for condonation of delay is also pending for a period of around four years. 6. It appears from the record that after notice was issued on the application for condonation of delay on 22/08/2022. After 22/08/2022, the appeal was listed for the 04. CAS 599 of 2022.odt 3 first time on 05/01/2026. The applicants were not prompt and diligent in pursuing the application. The application is pending for around three and half years. In such circumstances, this Court does not deem it appropriate to exercise discretion in favour of the applicants/appellants for condoning the delay, caused in filing the appeal. 7. Civil Application is, therefore, rejected. (ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.) Wadkar