1) This appeal is filed against the judgment and order of MARJI No.172/2008 which was pending in the Court of the District Judge-4, Aurangabad. The application was filed by the present appellant for condonation of delay of more than 1 year and 8 months caused in filing Regular Civil Appeal against the decision given by the trial Court in a suit filed for relief of injunction. Both the sides are heard.

2) Regular Civil Suit No.831 of 2003 was filed by present appellants against the respondents. The respondents include officers of the Survey Department and officers of the Municipal Council, Paithan. The other defendant are said to be neighbours of the plaintiffs. The suit was filed in respect of house property bearing Nos. 1856 to 1859 having size of 60 x 49 ft situated at Kaherwada, Taluka Paithan. Relief of perpetual injunction was sought by the appellants and it is refused by the trial Court. There are allegations against the officers of the Survey Department and the Municipal Council that they created false record in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 4, neighbours, by joining hands with them.

3) It is the case of the appellants/plaintiffs that Laxman and Ghanshyam were the owners of the suit property and after their demise the plaintiffs have become owner of the suit property. They contended that in the past, Bansi, the predecessor of defendant Nos.3 and 4 and Hiraman had filed Regular Civil Suit No.54 of 1963 for the possession of the aforesaid property against Laxman and Ghanshyam and the suit was dismissed by the Court. It is contended that the defendant Nos.3 and 4 have no concern whatsoever with the title and possession of the suit property.

4) It is the case of the defendant Nos.3 and 4 that their predecessors, Bansi and Hiraman, were the owner of the suit property. It is contended that in city survey record also there were names of Bansi and Hiraman and after their demise, the names of defendant Nos.3 and 4 are entered in the record of the city survey and assessment record created by the Municipal Council. It is contended that in the past Bansi and Hiraman had filed a suit against Ghanshyam and Laxman for possession of the suit property and the suit was decided in favour of Bansi and Hiraman. It is contended that possession was actually handed over to their predecessors and so they are in possession as owners.

5) The trial Court considered the record of previous suit like Regular Civil Suit No.54 of 1963 and also the decision given by the First Appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No.108 of 1964. The Lower Appellate Court decreed the suit of Bansi and Hiraman though the suit was dismissed by the trial Court and this decision has become final. As per the decision of the First Appellate Court, possession of the suit property was handed over to Bansi and Hiraman. The judgment of the trial Court shows that the present appellants admitted that defendant Nos.3 and 4 have made construction over this property. The record prepared by city survey office and the officers of the municipal council is also considered by the trial Court and the suit is dismissed.

6) In the application filed for condonation of delay, the present appellants had contended before the District Court that there was sufficient cause for not filing appeal in time. They contended that the period prescribed for filing appeal was 90 days and they had applied for certified copy immediately after the decision of the suit. It is contended that certified copy was supplied to them on 1-3-2006. They contended that as petitioner No.2 was suffering from heart disease and he was hospitalized as indoor patient he could not take steps for filing appeal. It was contended that petitioner No.1 was serving at other station and so he could not take steps for filing appeal. They contended that the delay was not caused intentionally.

7) Defendant Nos.3 and 4, present respondents, contested the proceeding by contending that no sufficient cause was shown. They further con