1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2416 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 9327 OF 2007 Shri Prahladsingh Ramkhilavansingh ... Appellant v/s Shri Sudhir J. Bhalekar & anr. ... Respondent Ms.Asha B. Bhambwani for the applicant. Ms.Kavita A. Shah i/by Atul Damle for Resp. No.2. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 3RD MAY, 2010 P.C.: 1. The civil application has been filed for condoning the delay in presenting the first appeal. There is a delay of 231 days. 2. The application is opposed on behalf of respondent No. 2. It is contended that the original applicant has not adequately explained the delay and, therefore, the application ought not to be granted. It is further 2 contended that there is no explanation as to why there has been a delay in approaching the Court after the decree was passed and the explanation is only for the period when the Trial Court was seized of the matter. 3. On consideration of the submissions advanced at the bar, it appears that the applicant expired after suffering renal failure and from other ailments. His heirs have been brought on record and they are now pursuing the matter. The medical certificate from the hospital, which is annexed to the civil application, indicates that the original applicant was suffering from chronic renal failure. He has stated in the application that it was therefore not possible for him to contact his advocate as he had to attend the hospital for dialysis and other tests. 4. In my view, the delay is required to be condoned as sufficient cause has been made out. 5. Hence, the civil application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). ..... 3