1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2039 OF 2009 Ramu Nagu Vadar Maruti Nagu Vadar ...Petitioners vs. 1 Bhimrao Mahadu Vadar (since deceased by his L.Rs) 1a Shankar Bhimrao Vadar 1b Dattatraya Bhimrao Vadar 1C Popat Bhimrao Vadar 1d Kurshanath Bhimrao Vadar 1e Sanjay Bhimrao Vadar 1f Vacchakka Shasikant Vadar 2 Shamrao Mahadu Vadar (since deceased by his L.Rs.) 2a Yeshwant Shamrao Vadar (since decased by his L.Rs.) 2a-1 Smt.Meena Yeshwant Vadar 2a-2 Abijeet Yeshwant Vadar 2a-3 Avinash Yeshwant Vadar 2a-4 Sou.Shubhangi Sunil Vadar 2b Bhupal Shamrao Vadar 2c Shantabai Shivaji Vadar 2d Ranjana Pandit Vadar 2e Anjana Shahaji Sarvardekar 3 Vishwas Bajrang Vadar 4 Mahipati Bajarang Vadar 5 Shripati Bajarang Vadar 6 Jayasingh Bajarang Vadar 7 The Government of Maharashtra Thr The Collector, Sangli 8 The Special District Land Record (Town Planning) and Consolidation Officer, Market Yard, Sangli ...Respondents 2 WRIT PETITION NO.2040 OF 2009 Ramu Nagu Vadar Maruti Nagu Vadar ...Petitioners vs. 1 Bhimrao Mahadu Vadar (since deceased by his L.Rs) 1a Shankar Bhimrao Vadar 1b Dattatraya Bhimrao Vadar 1C Popat Bhimrao Vadar 1d Kurshanath Bhimrao Vadar 1e Sanjay Bhimrao Vadar 1f Vacchakka Shashikant Vadar 2 Shamrao Mahadu Vadar (since deceased by his L.Rs.) 2a Yeshwant Shamrao Vadar (since decased by his L.Rs.) 2a-1 Smt.Meena Yeshwant Vadar 2a-2 Abhijeet Yeshwant Vadar 2a-3 Avinash Yeshwant Vadar 2a-4 Sou.Shubhangi Sunil Vadar 2b Bhupal Shamrao Vadar 2c Shantabai Shivaji Vadar 2d Ranjana pandit Vadar 2e Anjana Shahaji Sarvardekar ...Respondents Mr.T.S.Ingale for the petitioners in both the petitions Ms A.R.S.Baxi for the respondent nos.1(a,b,d,e), 2a-1 to 2a-3 and 3 to 6 in writ petition no.2039 of 2009 Mr.Pratap Patil for respondent no.1(a) to 1(c), 1(e) and 2(a) in W.P.No.2040/2009 Mr.S.D.Rayrikar, A.G.P. For respondent nos.7 to 8 in W.P.No.2039/2009 CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 29, 2009 JUDGMENT : 1 These two petitions can be conveniently disposed of by a common Judgment and order. By the impugned orders, the learned District Judge has rejected the applications made by the petitioners for condonation of delay in 3 preferring the appeals. The petitioners in writ petition no.2039 of 2009 are the defendants in a suit filed by the 1 st to 6 th respondents being R.C.S.No.472 of 1993. The said suit was decreed on 31 st July 1998. An appeal along with the application for condonation of delay was filed on 16 th July 1999. By the impugned order, the said application for condonation of delay has been dismissed. 2 The petitioners in writ petition no.2040 of 2009 are the plaintiffs in a suit filed by them against the respondents. The said suit was dismissed by the Judgment and Decree dated 31 st July 1998. An appeal along with the application for condonation of delay was preferred by the petitioners on 16 th July 1999. The said application has been rejected by the impugned order. 3 The learned counsel for the petitioners in this petitions invited my attention to the averments made in applications for condonation of delay. He submitted that on plain reading of the applications, sufficient cause was made out. He submitted that the Appellate Court ought to have adopted a liberal approach. The learned counsel for the contesting respondents opposed the petitions by pointing out that there is absolutely no reason for long delay and therefore, no interference is called for with the discretionary orders passed by the District Court. The learned A.G.P appearing in writ petition no.2039 of 2009 supported the impugned Judgment and order. 4 4 I have carefully considered the submissions. It appears that on 6 th August 1998 the petitioners applied for certified copies of the impugned Judgments and Decrees dated 31 st July 1998. The certified copies were ready on 1 st September 1998. According to the petitioners, they have always been in possession of the suit property and they were initially advised that as they are in possession, it is not necessary for them to prefer an appeal. It is alleged that the first petitioner is unable to walk and the 2 nd petitioner was reluctant to spend on expenses of appeal. It is stated that as they were unable to collect funds, they had left the matter of preferring the appeals to the wish of the God. It is alleged that with the grace of god they could gather some amount and approched an Advocate at Sangli to prefer an appeal. Thus, there was a delay of more than 8 months in preferring the appeals. 5 The delay was of about 8 months and 15 days. This is not a case where the petitioners were not desirous of agitating their rights in as much as the petitioners diligently prosecuted their suit filed in the year 1994. The petitioners defended the suit filed by the contesting respondents from the year 1993. The applications for condonation of delay appear to have remained pending from the year 1999. One of the grounds urged by the petitioners was that they belong to backward class of society. Considering the facts stated in the 5 applications, the Appellate Court ought to have adopted a liberal and justice oriented approach. The Appellate court could have compensated the contesting respondents by awarding the costs. The petitioners deserve to be granted an opportunity to prosecute their appeals on merits. Hence, the petitions must succeed. The Advocate for the petitioners has handed over to the Advocate for the contesting respondents cash amount of Rs.7500/- by way of costs payable of these petitions. 6 Hence, I pass the following order : i) The impugned orders are quashed and set aside and the applications for condonation of delay are allowed. ii)As the amount of costs of Rs.7,500/- has been directly paid in cash to the Advocate for the concerned respondents, the Registrar General will return a demand draft dated 18 th September 2009 to the Advocate for the petitioners. iii) The Appellate Court will proceed to register the appeals and the appeals shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. iv)The writ petition is disposed of in above terms. JUDGE