Timely filing of appeals is essential, and adequate justification for delays must be shown; failure to do so results in dismissal of the petition for condonation.

ORDER :

J.C. DOSHI, J.

1. This petition is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 549 days occurred in filing Civil Application for setting aside the abatement and permitting the petitioner to take recourse of provision of Order 22 Rule 4-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The brief facts are as under :

2.1 The petitioner Farzan Kali Pardiwala has filed Special Civil Suit No. 147 of 2015 before the Principal Senior Civil Court, at Vapi, District Valsad against the defendant Sarosh Minu Pardiwala and Mayaben Sarosh Pardiwala for the relief of declaration and cancellation of registered sale deed No. 4108 dated 19.4.2010 and to obtain the possession of the part of land of Survey No. 1080, City survey No. 3675. The suit was filed by Kali Minu Paridwala as the power of attorney holder of Farzan Kali Pardiwala.

2.2 According to the suit averment, the suit property was sold to the defendant by the registered sale deed No. 4108 on 19.4.2010 at the sale consideration of Rs. 7,50,000/-. The defendant paid the sale consideration by way of cheque which got dishonored and therefore, the plaintiff claimed that title of the suit property does not pass upon the defendant as sale consideration was not paid. Upon this averments, relief to cancel sale deed and to get back the possession was sought by filing the suit.

2.3 The defendant came out with a defense, filing written statement that the defendant was the real owner of the suit property. They purchased the property from Chimanbai Purshottambhai on 1.9.1980, by registered sale deed thereafter they made the pucca construction whereupon the defendant No.1 was carrying garage business. It is further contended that in the year 2006, the defendant No.1 seriously fell ill and was advised to take complete rest. Taking advantage of the said situation of the defendant a bogus forged attorney was created on 23.4.2006 and on the basis of the said power of attorney Mr. Kali Minu Pardiwala executed the sale deed in favour of his wife as a guardian of Farzan Kali Pardiwala for amount of Rs. 99,999. In the year 2009, the defendant came to know about the execution of fictitious sale deed based upon the forged power of attorney, hence, a criminal complaint was lodged under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 504, 506(2). Subsequent thereto a meeting held in presence of prominent persons whereby power of attorney holder Kali Minu Pardiwala had accepted his ingenuine error and agreed to transfer the suit property in the name of defendant No.1. It was further contended that a reverse sale deed thus was executed in favour of defendant No.1 without having any consideration but since the plaintiff was the sole son of defendant and his brother, the defendant agreed to give Rs. 7,50,000/- to plaintiff by way of cash as magnanimity as also love and affection but not as a sale consideration but any how plaintiff got the particulars of the cheque engrossed in sale deed as a sale consideration.

2.4 These were the averments upon which suit was fought before the learned Trial Court and having been permitted to lead the evidence and appreciated the same learned Trial Court reached to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to make out the case and ultimately the suit was dismissed. 3. The unsuccessful challenge was made by way of filing First Appeal being Regular Civil Appeal No. 40 of 2016.

3.1 In the background of facts whereby two unsuccessful attempts were made before the Court below, in Second Appeal under Section 100 of the CPC came to be filed by the plaintiff.

4. When the Second Appeal was filed, the respondent No