1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4343 OF 2010 IN SECOND APPEAL STAMP NO. 2740 OF 2010 Appasaheb S/o Karbhari Gunde .. Applicant Versus Gorakhnath S/o Madhavrao Adhav .. Respondent Shri A. D. Shinde, Advocate for the Applicant. Shri N. R. Bhavar, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 03RD SEPTEMBER, 2010. PER COURT : . The present application is filed for condonation of delay of 473 days in filing second appeal against the judgment and order dated 15.07.2008 passed by the lower Appellate Court in Misc. Civil Application No. 35 of 2006. 2 2. Heard, learned counsels for the respective parties. Shri Shinde, learned counsel for the applicant contended that, the delay that is caused is due to prosecuting wrong remedy in good faith. Initially writ petition came to be filed against the impugned judgment and decree. Thereafter, it transpired the writ petition would not be maintainable and thereafter the second appeal is filed. The delay i. e. caused is due to the time consumed in prosecuting the wrong remedy in bonafide and good faith. 3. Shri Bhavar opposes the said application contending that when the writ petition itself was not maintainable, it cannot be said that the proceedings were prosecuted in good faith and as not such, entitled for the benefit of Sec. 14 of the Limitation Act. 4. Initially against the order rejecting the application for delay condonation preferred in an appeal, the writ petitions were maintainable, but thereafter pursuant to the judgment of the Apex Court, the order on the application for condonation of delay was treated as decree and order in appeal and thereafter second appeal has been filed. In the light of the same, it can be safely arrived at that the proceeding of writ petition were prosecuted by 3 the appellant in good faith. In the light of above, the civil application is allowed. The delay is condoned. The civil application is disposed of. [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] bsb/Sept.10