The court emphasized the need for a satisfactory explanation for delay and cautioned against rendering statutory provisions redundant and inoperative.

JUDGMENT

N J Jamadar, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and, with the consent of the Counsels for the parties, heard finally.

2. The challenge in this petition is to the judgment and order dated 21st November 2017 passed by the learned District Judge-1, Udgir, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2015, whereby the learned District Judge was persuaded to dismiss the appeal and uphold the common order passed by the learned Civil Jude (J.D.), Udgir, in Misc. Civil Application No. 2 of 2008 thereby dismissing the application for condonation of delay in taking out the application for setting aside the abatement of Reg. Civil Suit No. 262 of 2000 and also dismissing the application for setting aside the abatement.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details the background facts leading to this petition can be stated as under:

a) Late Gangadhar Jagalpure was the father of petitioner Govind and co-applicant Pandurang and respondents No.5 to 7. Late Gangadhar had instituted a suit, being Regular Civil Suit No. 262 of 2000, against respondents No.1 to 4 seeking a declaration that the registered sale deed, vide No. 3944, dated 8th July 1999 executed in favour of respondent No.1 Laxmibai in respect of the ancestral agricultural land bearing survey No. 21/1 admeasuring 5H. 51R (the suit land), was void and not binding upon him. It was, inter-alia, averred that respondent No.1 Laxmibai and respondent No.2 Baburao had fraudulently got the sale deed executed by late Gangadhar by taking undue advantage of his physical condition and the trust and confidence which the late Gangadhar had reposed in them. Gangadhar died on 11th May 2002 leaving behind the petitioner, co-applicant Panurang and respondents No. 5 to 7 as his legal representatives.

b) During the life time of Gangadhar, the relations between late Gangadhar and the applicants on the one hand and the applicants and respondents No. 5 to 7, on the other hand, were not cordial. Deceased Gangadhar was suffering from a serious disease. Thus, the applicants were unaware of the institution of the said suit.

c) On 3rd January 2008 when the petitioner visited the suit land, respondent No.1 Laxmibai obstructed the petitioner from entering into the suit land as she claimed to have acquired exclusive ownership over the suit land consequent to the dismissal of Reg. Civil Suit No. 262/2000, as having been abated. Thereupon, the applicants obtained the necessary information about the said suit and filed Misc. Civil Application No. 2 of 2008 for setting aside the order of abatement dated 3rd April 2006.

d) Respondents No. 1 to 4 resisted the application for setting aside the abatement. It was, inter-alia, contended that the application cannot be entertained as there was no prayer for condonation of delay. Thereupon, on 7th October 2014 the applicants took out a separate application (Exh. 74) seeking condonation of delay in taking out the application for setting aside abatement and bringing the legal representatives of deceased plaintiff on record.

e) The learned Civil Judge, after appraisal of the rival pleadings and material in support of, and in opposition to, the prayer for condonation of delay and setting aside abatement, was persuaded to reject both the applications for condonation of delay and for setting aside the abatement by order dated 21st January 2015, opining that the applicant had failed to make out a sufficient cause for condonation of almost 12 years delay. The reason assigned by the applicants that they were unaware of institution of Reg. Civil Suit No. 262 of 2000 filed by deceased Gangadhar was found to be unworthy of acceptance.

f) Being aggrieved, the petitioner herein preferred Misc. Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2015 before the District Court. By the impugned judgment and order dated 21st of November 2017, the learned District Judge was persuaded to dismiss the appeal concurring with the view of the trial Court that the applicants/appellants had failed to make out a sufficient cause for condonation of dela