1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9759 OF 2009 IN CIVIL APPLICATION STAMP NO. 18626 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 243 OF 2007 Late Kisan S/o Shripat Patil-died-L.R.'s 1. Bhimrao S/o Kisan Patil and others .. .. Applicants Versus 1. Babulal @ Damodar S/o Hiralal Gujrathi and others .. .. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION STAMP NO. 18626 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 243 OF 2007 Late Kisan S/o Shripat Patil-died-L.R.'s 1. Bhimrao S/o Kisan Patil and others .. .. Applicants Versus 1. Babulal @ Damodar S/o Hiralal Gujrathi and others .. .. Respondents Shri N. E. Deshmukh, Advocate h/f Shri S. B. Talekar, Advocate for the Applicants, Shri S. A. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1, 2A to 2D. Respondent No. 2E dismissed. CORAM : N. D. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 30TH NOVEMBER, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1. These are the two separate applications for condonation of 2 delay of 18 days caused in filing the application for recalling and setting aside the order dated 07.07.2009 and for recalling and setting aside the order dated 07.07.2009 along with restoration of the second appeal to its original position. 2. Heard Shri Kulkarni, learned counsel for the respondent opposing application for condonation of delay praying for recalling order of dismissal in default and for restoration of second appeal for admission at its original position. It is mainly on the ground that, the reason stated for condonation of delay of 20 days beyond the 30 days period prescribed in Law. There is no satisfactory explanation. Moreover, the reason given is false. The medical certificate annexed is from the doctor at Malegaon and the appellant is resident of Chopda. 3. In fact, in High Court, there is limited role played by the party for making submissions for admission, when he or she represented is by a counsel. Moreover, admission of second appeal is much dependent on substantial question. It is true that, for condonation of delay application, law insist for reasons and those must be valid reasons and, therefore, such application came for recalling the order for restoration. Though, there is limitation and period prescribed for restoration in Civil Procedure Code and under Limitation Act and as the case may be delay has become regular feature amongst litigant, whether he is from rural or urban area. The respondent's first appeal was allowed and the Trial Courts finding is in favour of the present appellant. He is required to be heard at the time of admission of second appeal. 3 4. As such, earlier order of dismissal of second appeal in default needs to be reconsidered and hence the application for recalling the order is allowed. The order dated 07.07.2009 is hereby recalled and set aside. The second appeal is restored to its original position. The delay of 20 days beyond 30 days period prescribed as stated not because of merits and this Court is not interested to go into the question of veracity or credibility of the grounds stated in the application about the illness and the medical certificate. Normally Court insist on medical certificate to prove the illness and the parties are constrained to file the medical certificate from whatsoever source they get stating about the illness. As such, the application for condonation of delay is allowed. 5. Both the applications are allowed and disposed of even in the absence of Shri Talekar, learned counsel for the applicant and request of Shri Deshmukh, counsel holding for Shri Talekar for keeping the matter back stands rejected. 6. Fix the matter for admission in the next week. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] bsb/Nov.09