(1) SA. 601.2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 601 OF 2009 1] Shivlal Chagan Barwal Age : 40 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Nandi, Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna 2] Anandsing S/o Asaram Barwal Age : 24 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Nandi, Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna .. Appellants VERSUS Lajrus S/o Keru Ghule, Age : 63 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Nandi, Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna .. Respondent WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8631 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 601 OF 2009 Shivlal Chagan Barwal and anr. .. Applicants VERSUS Lajrus S/o Keru Ghule .. Respondent Mr. S.D. Hiwrekar, Advocate for the appellants-applicants Mr. G.C. Navandar, Advocate with Mr. D.B. Bhange, Advocate for the respondent CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 5TH OCTOBER, 2009 ORAL ORDER:- 1] Heard. The appellants challenge the order passed by the learned District Judge, Jalna rejecting (2) SA. 601.2009 their application, seeking condonation of delay in filing of the first appeal. The respondent filed Regular Civil Suit no. 91 of 2004 against the appellants seeking declaration and possession. The appellants did not file written statement and the suit was decreed on 3.3.2005. The appellants promptly filed appeal against such judgment and decree and the learned Judge of the appellate court on 4.3.2006 allowed the appeal and remanded the case back to the Civil Court, directing the appellants to file written statement and contest the suit on merits. Despite this opportunity, the appellants did not file written statement. The learned Judge of the trial Court then again decreed the suit on 14.12.2007. This time, the appellants did not file the appeal in time. They filed it after the delay of 106 days. With the earlier background of the appellants, they could not persuade the learned District Judge for condoning the delay and the application was rejected. Against this order, the present second appeal is filed. 2] Upon hearing both the sides, I think the appellants still deserve an opportunity to contest the suit on merits. I think the Ld. judge of lower appellate court erred in rejecting the application seeking condonation of delay. Second Appeal should succeed and the case should be remanded back to the trial Court. (3) SA. 601.2009 On the payment of Rs.1000/- as costs, to be deposited by the appellants in the trial Court on or before 3.11.2009, the Second Appeal shall stand allowed and the judgment of both the Courts below shall stand set aside. Regular Civil Suit no. 91 of 2004 shall stand remanded back to the trial Court. The appellants shall file written statement on or before 18.11.2009 and the trial Court shall not give them further time to do so. The trial Court shall decide the case on merits. If the cost is not paid, the Second Appeal shall stand dismissed. If the cost is paid, the amount of costs shall be handed over to the respondent- plaintiff or his Advocate. 3] In view of the order passed above, Civil Application no. 8631 of 2009 stands disposed of. Interim relief granted earlier to stand vacated. Sd/- (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) arp