1 14.cas.810.08 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 810 OF 2008 IN SECOND APPEAL (ST.) NO. 9147 OF 2008 Shri. Lalasaheb Dattoba Pawar and another .... Applicants VERSUS Shri. Balasaheb Dattoba Pawar and another .... Respondents Mr. S. J. Ghogare Advocate for the Applicants Mr. V. S. Talkute Advocate for Respondent No. 1. CORAM: K. K. TATED, J. DATED: JANUARY 11, 2011. P.C.: Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The present Civil Application is preferred by original opponent Nos. 1 and 2 for condonation of 418 delay in filing Second Appeal against Judgment and Decree dated 27 th September, 2006 passed by the learned District Judge at Sangli in Regular Civil Appeal No. 51 of 2003. 2 14.cas.810.08 3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Applicants submit that the Appellate Court passed Judgment and Decree on 27 th September, 2006 and thereafter, Advocate expired on 8 th February, 2007. He submits that for want of knowledge it remained on the part of the Applicants to prefer the Second Appeal. He further submits that in the interest of justice delay in preferring the Second Appeal to be condoned. 4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent vehemently opposed the present Civil Application. He pointed out in the Affidavit­in­Reply that the Applicant hereinabove filed Regular Civil Suit No. 449 of 2001 in the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Karad. In the said suit, Respondent filed an application dated 5 th February, 2007 for placing on record the impugned Judgment and Decree passed by the learned District Judge at Sangli dated 27 th September, 2006 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 51 of 2003. He submits that though the Applicant learnt about the impugned 3 14.cas.810.08 Judgment and Decree passed by the learned District Judge, Sangli on 2 nd February, 2007, they failed to take appropriate steps immediately for preferring the present Second Appeal. 5. Considering the submissions made by the Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants and the reasons stated in the Civil Application, I am of the opinion that in the interest of justice, delay deserves to be condoned. It is admitted fact that Applicant has not disclosed sufficient cause for condoning 418 days delay but considering the interest of justice, delay is condoned on payment of cost of Rs.2,500/­. Payment of cost is condition precedent. Cost to be paid to the Respondents within four weeks from today. C.A. disposed of accordingly. (K. K. TATED, J.)