SRJ caf-4928-09.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4928 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4929 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.30292 OF 2009 Mavjibhai P. Pokar & Others .. Applicants. Vs. Suresh S. Sane .. Respondent. Mr.D.M.Joshi for Applicants. Mr.S.P. Ghaste for Respondent. CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. DATE : 19th MARCH, 2010. P.C. : 1] Heard counsel. 2] This application is for condonation of delay. There is delay of 73 days in filing of the application and appeal. 3] The Applicants submit that though they were the original Defendants, yet the Appellant No.2 alone used to look after the litigation on their behalf. They submit that one of the cousin sister of the Appellant No.2 died after the impugned order was rendered and thereafter, there were two marriages in his family. He was, therefore, engaged in the family affairs. Consequently, he could not attend the SRJ caf-4928-09.sxw 2 matters. By way of reply affidavit, the averments in the application are denied. It is contended on behalf of the original plaintiff that the delay is not properly explained. 4] The reply affidavit reveals that the Appellant No.2 i.e. Original Defendant No.2 was acting as Power of Attorney holder on behalf of the Defendants. There were 10 Defendants in the suit. It is of common knowledge that when the Power of Attorney is appointed to look after the litigation, the executents of such Power of Attorney do not normally take further interest and would depend upon the acts of the Power of Attorney. According to the Respondent(Plaintiff),the Defendant met at his residence and assured him that they would comply with the decree. He later on, wrote letter dated 24th December, 2009 to them and called upon them to comply the decree. The letters are said to have been sent by the Registered Post A.D. but the postal acknowledgment are not on record. Secondly, even if such letters are issued, it does not mean that the Defendants had given up the right to file the appeal. It may be that some of them were not willing to prefer the appeal, but such kind of attitude of the some of the Defendants cannot amount to abandonment of the SRJ caf-4928-09.sxw 3 right to prefer an appeal. 5] Considering the reasons stated in the application and the difficulties which arose due to death of the cousin and subsequently two marriages in the family of the Defendant No.2, the delay cannot be termed as too excessive. It is well settled law that liberal approach is required to be adopted in such matter. The delay needs to be condoned in view of the foregoing reasons. 6] In the result, the application is allowed subject to costs of Rs.2,000/-. 7] The application for interim stay to be heard on 9th April, 2010 since the compliance of the condonation order is to to be made. 8] S.O. to 9th April, 2010. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J)