JUDGMENT 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By the present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged order dated 18.7.2003 below exh.6 i.e. Misc. Civil Application No.122/2003, rejecting the prayer for condonation of delay of ten years, six months and nine days in filing appeal before the District Judge. FACTS : 3. In a suit for partition and separate possession filed by the respondents/plaintiffs i.e. Special Civil Suit No.5/1976 a decree came to be passed on 31.3.1983 by the Civil Judge (S.D.), Chandrapur. The petitioners/defendants therein instead of filing appeal in the District Court, Chandrapur on a wrong legal advise filed the same in the High Court within the limitation prescribed for filing First Appeal in the High Court. On 16.8.1994, the High Court held that appeal lay before the District Judge and not the High Court and, therefore, the memo of appeal was returned for proper presentation. On 19.8.1994, the petitioners presented the appeal before the District Judge, Chandrapur along with an application for condonation of delay in filing appeal and for exclusion of time spent in the High Court. That application for condonation of delay was registered as Misc. Civil Application No.122/2003 i.e. application (Exh.6) and, hence, this Writ Petition. ARGUMENTS : 4. Advocate Shri Khajanchi for the petitioners argued that the decree that was passed for partition and separate possession was put to challenge by filing First Appeal in the High Court on the advise tendered by Advocate Shri P.M. Gundawar and that it remained pending in the High Court till the High Court held that the appeal was maintainable before the District Judge under order dated 16.8.1994. He then argued that immediately thereafter within three days he presented the said memo of appeal before the District Judge, Chandrapur on 19.8.1994 and, therefore, the petitioners were entitled to the exclusion under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 5. Per contra, Advocate Shri Dharmadhikari for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 vehemently opposed the writ petition and argued that the delay of ten years, six months and nine days has rightly been not condoned by the District Judge. 5. Per contra, Advocate Shri Dharmadhikari for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 vehemently opposed the writ petition and argued that the delay of ten years, six months and nine days has rightly been not condoned by the District Judge. He argued that the period of ten years is a very long period and it cannot be believed that such a simple matter regarding filing of appeal can be said to be in good faith, as required by Section 2 (h) of the Limitation Act, 1963. 6. Advocate Shri Dharmadhikari for respondent Nos.1 to 3 relied on the following decisions ; 1. AIR 1972 Supreme Court 730 (Rabindra Nath Samuel Dawson...Versus...Sivakami and others. 2. 2000 (1) Civil LJ 789 (Nilamani Behera...Versus...Sita Sundari Dibya (having died) Smt. Girija Dalabehera and others. 3. AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361 (Ramlal and others...Versus...Rewa Coalfields Ltd.). 4. AIR 1985 Supreme Court 39 (Zafar Khan and others...Versus...Board of Revenue, U.P. and others). CONSIDERATION : 7. Having heard learned Counsel for the rival parties and having gone through the record as well as impugned order, I find that in the application for condonation of delay the averments about advise by Advocate Shri P.M. Gundawar are as vague as they could be. In paragraph No.1, in few lines, it is mentioned that the appeal was filed in the High Court with the advise of Advocate Shri P.M. Gundawar. There are no details as to when the petitioners had contacted Advocate Shri P.M. Gundawar and when he tendered the advise and whether he himself or other person or some other Advocate filed the appeal. On the contrary, the certified copy placed before me shows the name of Advocate Shri B.A. Udhoji and Advocate Shri N.M. Lingayat and another certified copy shows that the papers were received by Advocate Shri Dhanagare on behalf of petitioners. In other words, there is absolutely no material placed on record to enable the Court to take a view that Advocate Shri P.M. Gundawar was really concerned with the matter. It was for the petitioners to place proper evidence before the Court in support of the said statement. Not only that the petitioners failed to file affidavit of Advocate Shri P.M. Gundawar in support of the statement in paragraph No.1. 8. It was for the petitioners to place proper evidence before the Court in support of the said statement. Not only that the petitioners failed to file affidavit of Advocate Shri P.M. Gundawar in support of the statement in paragraph No.1. 8. The affidavit to the application for condonation of delay is also as vague as it could be and there is no definite verification about paragraph No.1 and a vague general statement is made that the facts stated in the application are partly true to his personal knowledge and partly true to the information received from the Counsel. The Court cannot take these things lightly because the delay is of ten years, six months and nine days and certain rights of the parties have crystallized in the meanwhile. Therefore, in my opinion, it cannot be said that the petitioners can be said to have acted with due care and caution, which is required for claiming exclusion under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. 9. The application for condonation of delay has been most casually drafted and on such application the enormous delay cannot be condoned casually. That apart, though it may not be very relevant, fact remains that after filing of the appeal before the District Court having taken the papers from the High Court way back on 19.8.1994, the application for condonation of delay has been decided by the impugned order on 18.7.2003. 10. I, therefore, confronted Shri Khajanchi, the learned Counsel for the petitioners as to why for decision on application for condonation of delay it took almost nine years in the District Court. 11. Advocate Shri Khajanchi for petitioners produced certified copy of order-sheet before me and upon perusal thereof, I find that the Counsel for petitioners so also Counsel for the respondents have obtained number of adjournments on number of occasions during nine years. On number of occasions, the Court also adjourned the proceedings but then it cannot be forgotten that it was the duty of the petitioners to grab opportunity at the earliest point of time to get the application for condonation of delay decided instead of asking for adjournment in the initial years. After all it was the responsibility of the petitioners to pursue the application for condonation of delay, but it clearly appears that for want of due diligence, care and attention the proceedings for condonation of delay went on for nine years. After all it was the responsibility of the petitioners to pursue the application for condonation of delay, but it clearly appears that for want of due diligence, care and attention the proceedings for condonation of delay went on for nine years. I do not think that the total period of about 20 years which has already passed should be looked at casually by this Court particularly when the litigants shout for early decisions and are waiting for early fruits of the decree in their favour. It would be a travesty of justice to allow reopening of the matter after 20 years particularly because there is a sheer negligence on the part of applicants in conducting the matter even in District Court for nine years for which there is no justification. 12. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.