Oral Judgement:

1. Heard Mr. Mahadeo Choudhari, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants.

2. By this Second Appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the Appellant assails the Order dated 17.02.2026 passed by the Principal District Judge, Solapur (“District Court”), in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.196 of 2024 (“impugned Order”), which rejected the Application seeking condonation of delay in filing a Regular Appeal under Section 96 of the CPC against the Judgment and Decree dated 03.08.2001 passed in Special Civil Suit No.551 of 1998.

3. The material facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this Second Appeal are that Ratnabai Basavannappa Phatate (Respondent No.1) and Sou. Suman Vishwanath Kurle, the Plaintiffs, instituted Special Civil Suit No.551 of 1998 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Solapur (“Trial Court”) on 24.07.1998. Said Special Civil Suit No.551 of 1998 was decreed on 03.08.2001.

4. The Appellant No.1 Sou. Shakuntala Appasaheb Vibhute (Defendant No.7) and Applellant No.5 Mahesh Appasaheb Vibhute (Defendant No.8) and the legal representatives of Appasaheb Eknath Vibhute (Defendant No.1).

5. On 31.08.2024, the Appellants filed Civil Miscellaneous Application No.196 of 2024 before the District Court, seeking condonation of a delay of 22 years and 8 months in filing the Regular Civil Appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 03.08.2001 passed in Special Civil Suit No.551 of 1998. The Respondents opposed this Application.

6. The District Court, vide the impugned Order, rejected the Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 196 of 2024, holding that the Appellants failed to show sufficient cause for condoning the enormous delay of 22 years and 8 months.

7. Mr. Mahadeo A. Choudhari, learned Advocate for the Appellants, submits that the Appellants and the Respondents are family members and therefore this Court may consider issuing notice to the Respondents to ascertain whether the matter can be amicably resolved between the parties. He further submits that the Appellants seek condonation of a delay of 22 years and 8 months because they were unaware of the institution of Special Civil Suit No. 551 of 1998 and of the passing of the Judgment and Decree dated 03.08.2001. He submits that the Appellants' unawareness constitutes sufficient cause for condonation of delay and for hearing the Regular Civil Appeal on merits.

8. Perused the records with the assistance of Mr. Mahadeo A. Choudhari, learned Advocate for the Appellants.

9. The Judgment and Decree dated 03.08.2001, passed by the Trial Court in Special Civil Suit No.551 of 1998, is at page No.36 of the paper book. The cause title of the judgment and decree, in the context of the appearance, reads as follows:

                   “Advocates.

                   Mr. V. C. Patil, for the Plaintiffs.

                   Mr. A. D. Thokade, for defendant No.2.

                   Defendants No.1, 2, 5, 7 and 8 No W. S.

                   Defendants No.4 & 6: Ex parte.”

                   (emphasis supplied)

10. From the face of the record, the Appellants (Defendant Nos. 1, 7 and 8) appear to have been served with the summons issued in Special Civil Suit No. 551 of 1998, passed by the Trial Court. They chose not to appear, not to file their written statement, or to contest the suit.

11. Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 196 of 2024 (at page No. 25) comprises five (5) paragraphs setting out the grounds for condonation of delay, which are reproduced verbatim as follows:-

                   (1) Present applicants have challenged and filed an appeal against the Judgment & Decree passed in SpL. C. S. No.551/1998, dt.03.08.2001 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Solapur (A.B. Gonjare) and has raised various grounds of objections to the decree appeal from. The Learned Trial Court as wrongly and illegally passed the decree.

                   (2) Therefore, being aggrieved by the said order dated 03.08.2001 the applicants have filed Appeal. The applicants were unaware of the said suit and decree till 2023. Thereafter, in the year 2023 the applicant have received the notice of Tahasildar, North Solapur about the said execution of decree, after the applicants came to know about the said decree. Thereafter, the applicants have applied for certified documents on date 02.08.2024 and thereby the applicant got the said documents dt.06.08.2024.

                   (3) It is submitted that, as the husband of Applicant No.1 and father of Applicant Nos.2 to 5 Appasaheb Eknath Vibhute has never communicated about the said suit and decree to the applicants. That's way the applicants have never known about the decree. Therefore, the present applicants have not filed an appeal within limitation. However, to avoid technicalities, the Applicants have filed this Application for Condonation of delay.

                   (4) It is submitted that, the delay is caused for filing an appeal is unintentional and there is no negligence on the part of applicants. The delay caused for filing an appeal is necessary to be condoned in the interest of justice. If delay is not condoned. The applicants will suffer irreparable loss.

                   (5) It is therefore prayed that,

                   A) Application kindly be allowed.

                   B) The delay for about 22 years 08 months days caused for filing an appeal be kindly condoned and appeal be direct to be registered and decided accordingly to law.

                   C) Any just and equitable orders be kindly be passed.”

12. The Application seeking condonation of delay rests on a solitary contention that the Appellants were unaware of Special Civil Suit No. 551 of 1998 and the decree passed therein until 2023. The averments in the Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 196 of 2024 are as vague as vagueness can be. On the face of the records, the said explanation is not convincing. The statements of the Appellants are contrary to the records. The reasons put forth by the Appellants are fanciful and do not fall within the parameters laid down in the various pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court for condoning the delay.

13. Substantive rights in favour of the decree holder in Special Civil Suit No. 551 of 1998 have accrued as far back as the year 2001 and this right ought not to be interfered with lightly. The Appellants seek to assail a decree passed as long back as 22 years and 8 months on reasons for delay which do not constitute a cause, let alone “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

14. The District Court has assessed the case of the Appellants and has rejected the request to condone the delay. There is no perversity, much less any illegality, in the impugned Order. Civil Miscellaneous Application No.196 of 2024 is without merit.

15. No substantial question of law arises in this Second Appeal. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the Second Appeal is without merit and is accordingly dismissed.

16. No order as to costs.