IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1012 OF 2009 IN STAMP NUMBER MAIN NO. 3956 OF 2009 MR. ERIC SEQUEIRA ... Applicant Versus MR. LEONARD FERNANDES ... Respondent Mr. A. R. Kantak, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Sahish Mahambrey, Advocate for the respondent. Coram:- A. S. OKA & F. M. REIS, JJ. Date:- 7th July, 2010 P.C. :- This is an application made by the original defendant for condonation of delay in preferring an appeal against a money decree passed against him in the sum of Rs.28,83,928/- with interest at the rate of 20 % per annum from the date of the filing of the suit. This court had permitted the applicant to file an additional affidavit explaining the delay. In the additional affidavit, it is stated that till 8th August, 2007, the applicant was not aware of the decree passed on 21st December, 2005. It is stated that after the applicant became aware of the decree, he tried to get in touch with the respondent who is based in Dubai. According to the applicant, he had a very good relationship with the respondent and, therefore, he tried to contact the respondent for settling the matter and in the meanwhile, he engaged an advocate to represent him in the execution application. It is stated that the constituted attorney appointed by the respondent was reluctant to discuss the settlement. 2. In paragraphs 8 and 9 of the additional affidavit, the applicant has alleged that he established telephonic contact with the respondent and made discussion about the settlement. According to the applicant, an assurance was given by the respondent that he would come back to India in December, 2008 and will put an end to the matter. It is stated that the applicant was having a very cordial relationship with the respondent notwithstanding filing of the suit. 3. The application is opposed by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent by pointing out that there is hardly any explanation for the long delay of 1448 days. He submitted that the execution application filed by the respondent is pending for last 4 years and filing an appeal at the belated stage is an attempt to frustrate the claim of the respondent in the execution proceedings. He submitted that no sufficient cause has been made out for condoning the delay. 4. We have given our careful consideration to the submissions. As stated earlier, there is a money decree in the sum of Rs.28,82,928/- along with interest. The case of the applicant is that he was not aware of the decree till 8th August, 2007 and thereafter, he made efforts to put an end to the dispute by contacting the respondent. It is well settled that the Court has to adopt a liberal and justice oriented approach while dealing with the applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Considering the averments made in the application and the additional affidavit, we find that sufficient cause is made out by the applicant for condoning the delay. However, the applicant will have to pay costs quantified at Rs.15,000/-, to the respondent. 5. Hence the application is allowed. The delay is condoned in terms of prayer clause (a), subject to the applicant paying costs of Rs.15,000/- to the respondent within a period of four weeks from today. The payment of costs will be a condition precedent. If compliance is not made within the stipulated period, the application will stand dismissed for non-prosecution, without further reference to the Court. A. S. OKA, J. F. M. REIS, J. ssm.