1. This is an application for condoning delay of 3015 and 3166 days in filing cross objection and for admitting cross objection in Second Appeals 658/2007 and 701/2007.

2. Heard the learned Advocate Mr. Warma for the applicant, Mr. Subdoh Shah, Advocate for Respondent No. 3-original plaintiff and Mr. S.S. Choudhari, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

3. Subhash - respondent No.1 in the Appeal is original plaintiff. He had filed Special Civil Suit No.142/1992 against Kashinath the owner, the appellant in Second Appeal No. 701 of 2007 for specific performance of contract. As per his plaint, Kashinath had agreed to sell the suit land at block No. 18 admeasuring 6858 sq.ft. at Pimpalner, Tal. Sakri to him by agreement to sell dated 23.04.1984 for price of Rs.15/- per sq.ft. He claimed that he had paid Rs.11,000/- as earnest. He was ready and willing to perform his part of contract. Thereafter, defendant No. 3 Chhagan filed Regular Civil Suit 6/1984 against his brother (the plaintiff's vendor) Kashinath, claiming himself to be the exclusive owner of the property. The suit came to be dismissed in default on 08.09.1987. The application for restoration was also dismissed on 13.02.1989. The appeal against the same was also dismissed. The plaintiff noticed on 04.03.1992 that there was paper publication showing that defendant No.2 Dattatraya was purchasing the suit property from Kashinath. The plaintiff issued notice and filed suit for specific performance of the contract. Meanwhile, on 01.09.1992, Kashinath sold the suit property to defendant No.2 by registered sale deed. Hence, Dattatraya (D2) and Chhagan (D3) were made parties. He claimed specific performance in the alternative refund of money and damages and declaration that sale in favour of defendant No. 2 is void and the perpetual injunction. Defendant No. 1 denied execution of agreement to sell and also claimed that suit was barred by limitation. He claimed that plaintiff and defendant No. 3 in collusion were trying to deceive him. Defendant No.1 claimed that father of the plaintiff had taken his signature on blank stamp paper while purchasing another portion of the land block No. 18 and it was misused. Defendant No. 2 Dattatraya claimed that he was bona fide purchaser for value. Defendant No.3 Chhagan claimed that it was an ancestral property and it was allotted to him in partition in 1975-76. By Judgment dated 17.01.1998, learned Civil Judge, Senior Division granted decree for specific performance against defendant No. 1. He also declared that the sale deed in favour of defendant No. 2 dated 01.09.1992 was null and void. As such, there was no specific order against defendant No. 3 Chhagan.

4. Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 preferred Civil Appeals No.37/2001, 38/2001 and 65/2004 against the plaintiff Subhash. Learned Ad-hoc District Judge-1, Dhule by a common lengthy Judgment dated 03.08.2007 dismissed all the appeals.

5. Aggrieved defendant No.2 Dattatraya preferred Second Appeal No. 658/2007, whereas aggrieved vendor Kashinath has preferred Appeal No.701/2007. Defendant No. 3 Chhagan is respondent No.3 in both the matters. By order dated 27th August, 2008, both the appeals were admitted by framing substantial question of law as to whether the suit was barred by limitation and whether the Courts below did not exercise the discretion in the light of settled principles while granting decree for specific performance. Mr. Chhagan has not challenged the Judgment against him. He appeared long back but did not file any cross objection earlier. On 12th September, 2017, the present application has been submitted for filing cross objection. In Second Appeal No. 701/2007, there is delay of 3166 days in preferring the cross objection. In Second Appeal No. 658/2007 delay is of 3015 days. The respondent No.3 Chhagan by cross objection wants to challenge the findings of the lower Courts holding defendant No.1 as the sole owner. The appellant as well as the respondent-original plaintiff have