1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8534 OF 2004 IN SECOND APPEAL STAMP NO. 10592 OF 2002 Bhagirath S/o Jagannath Pardeshi and others .. Applicants Versus M/s Papalal Shivchand Oil Mills Company and another .. Respondents Shri Mukul Kulkarni, Advocate for the Applicant. Respondent No. 7 served - absent. CORAM : N. D. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 07TH NOVEMBER, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1. This is an application for condonation of delay of six days caused in filing second appeal before this Court. The applicants are the original plaintiffs to the suit. The suit came to be decreed for possession on the basis of registered agreement to lease which expired, however in the first appeal by the defendant, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court was came to be set aside. It is also mentioned that, pending hearing of first appeal original plaintiff Chabibai Shivlal Jaiswal expired, but her legal heirs were not 2 brought on record by the appellants/defendants before the First Appellate Court. However, the appeal came to be disposed of in default of the legal heirs. 2. After the impugned judgment and decree came to be passed in first appeal. The present applicants were advised to file second appeal, and therefore, took more time for bringing the legal heirs of Chabibai Shivlal Jaiswal on record of the second appeal to be drafted and prepared as they were not brought in the proceeding of first appeal due to the default of opposite party. Hence, it was submitted by the learned counsel Shri Kulkarni for the applicants/appellants that delay occasioned for presenting and filing the second appeal and there was some mistake while calculating the period of limitation and it may be considered as bonafide. The said period is of six days and, therefore, Shri Kurlkarni urged for condonation of delay in the facts and circumstances. 3. Notice was directed to the opposite party and none appeared and the application for condonation of delay is heard today after notice to the opposite party. In short there is no reply or objection by the opposite party for condonation of delay. The period of delay is six days and same is explained as above. It is true that condonation of delay would cause prejudice to opposite party, but hear the opposite party did not care to give appearance and moreover such delay needs to be explained and not necessary to be proved by any evidence, as such it is explained to the satisfaction of the Court condoning the delay as sufficient cause for not preferring appeal in time for further extension of period of appeal. 3 4. Upon considering the record and hearing the submissions of Shri Kulkarni the learned counsel for the applicants/appellants it can be said that, appellants/applicants have made out a case for condonation of delay. The application deserves to be allowed. The application is allowed, the delay is condoned. The application is disposed of accordingly. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] bsb/Nov. 09