16-SA-451-26.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 451 OF 2026 Razzak Mahammad Pathan (Since deceased through LRs) ..Appellants/ Applicants Versus Gulab Mahammad Pathan & ors. …Respondents WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7147 OF 2026 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 451 OF 2026 Mr. Pratik Rahade, for the Appellants/Applicants. Mr. Sugandh Deshmukh, i/b Mr. Vaibhav Thorve, for the Respondent No.1. CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : 16th SEPTEMBER 2026 ORDER :- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This Second Appeal is directed against an order in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 95/2019 whereby the learned District Judge rejected an application preferred by the appellants for condonation of delay of about 16 years in filing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 25th November, 2002 passed by the trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 67/1991. SAINATH, PA 1/4 2026:BHC-AS:38284 16-SA-451-26.DOC 3. By the said judgment and decree, the suit instituted by the Respondent No.1 for partition, possession and injunction against Razzak Mahammad Pathan (D-1), the predecessor-in- title of the appellants, and the Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 herein, came to be decreed and it was declared that the Respondent No.1 has ½ share in the suit land and was entitled to partition and separate possession of the same. 4. The appellants professed to file an appeal against the said judgment and decree in the month of July 2019 with an application for condonation of delay of about 16 years in preferring the Second Appeal. It was inter alia asserted that, the Defendant No.1 was suffering from terminal illness and after the demise of the Defendant No.1, the appellants were not in a proper frame of mind and, therefore, there was delay in preferring the appeal. 5. The learned District Judge was not inclined to accept the aforesaid reason ascribed by the appellants as a sufficient cause for the condonation of such huge delay. 6. Mr. Pratik Rahade, the learned Counsel for the appellants, made an earnest endeavour to urge that, the appellants have a very strong case on merits and the refusal to condone the delay and hear the appeal on merits, would cause irreparable SAINATH, PA 2/4 16-SA-451-26.DOC prejudice to the appellants. In these circumstances, the learned District Judge ought to have construed the cause ascribed by the appellants for condonation of delay, liberally. 7. The submissions canvassed by Mr. Rahade are required to be noted to be repelled. Firstly, the contentions of the appellants that they were unaware of the pendency of the suit and the decree passed therein as the Defendant No.1 was looking after the said suit, is belied by the fact that, after the demise of the Defendant No.1, the appellants were brought on record as his legal representatives, during the pendency of the suit itself. 8. Secondly, as noted by the learned District Judge, the appellants were served with the notices for partition by meets and bounds by the Tahsildar in the year 2010. Yet, the appeal was sought to be preferred in the year 2019. 9. By any standard, the delay of 16 years can only be said to be inordinate and unpardonable. No amount of explanation can account for such huge delay. Moreover, the reason ascribed by the appellants in the application appeared to be demonstrably incorrect. The learned District Judge was justified in holding that, the delay cannot be condoned as an act of judicial generosity and by showing misplaced sympathy. 10. There is no substance in the appeal. SAINATH, PA 3/4 16-SA-451-26.DOC 11. No question of law, much less, a substantial question of law, arises for consideration. 12. The Second Appeal stands dismissed. 13. Interim Application No.7147 of 2026 also stands disposed. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] SAINATH, PA 4/4 Signed by: S.S.Phadke Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 19/09/2026 18:53:20