1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 880 OF 2008 IN APPEAL (LODGING) NO. 93 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO. 1404 OF 1985 Shanti Ramchand Bajaj, .. Appellant. Vs. Arjandas Teckchand Kashyap & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. A.S. Khandeparkar i/by S.J. Khera for the Appellant. Mr. Venkatesh Dhond with Ms. Simeen Shaikh & Ms. Abha Gupta i/by S.K. Srivastav & Co. for the Respondents. Mr. Parekh Shah, Partner of Shah & Sanghavi present. CORAM : J. N. PATEL & SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, JJ DATE : 25TH SEPTEMBER, 2009 P.C. : 2 The earlier advocates and solicitors have filed an affidavit as called upon by this Court. The same is taken on record. Copies are furnished to the other side. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. On going through the affidavit filed by Mr. Paresh J. Shah, partner of M/s. Shah and Sanghavi, Advocates and Solicitors, this Court finds that the delay in filing the appeal stands explained by the earlier advocates with whom the matter was lying. In paragraph 4 of the affidavit it is stated that on 11.8.2005, they did not appear in the matter on a bonafide belief that they have returned all the papers to the Appellant s husband in the above matter. No party should suffer for ’ the fault on the part of the advocate and on going through the affidavit of Mr. Shah we find that the whole thing has occurred due to oversight / inadvertence on their part while prosecuting the matter i.e. Suit No. 1404 of 1985 and as the record and proceedings were returned to the party, and that thereafter the appellant approached them sometime on 27.9.2007 and then the appellant has taken steps to prefer the appeal. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing the appeal. The notice of motion is made absolute in terms of clause (a) with no order as to costs. 3 4. The appellant to register the appeal and remove all the office objections. The appeal be thereafter listed for admission in due course. ( J. N. PATEL, J) (SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J.)