(1) CA. 4362.2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4362 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL (ST.) NO. 3644 OF 2009 Deorao S/o Yeshwantrao Phadke .. Applicant VERSUS Vinayak S/o Shripatrao Shinde .. Respondent Mr. V.C. Solshe, Advocate for the applicant/appellant None present for the respondent though served CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 14TH SEPTEMBER, 2009 P.C.:- 1] The respondent is served but has not caused appearance and has not opposed the application. The application seeks condonation of delay of 249 days in filing of the Second Appeal. The reason for delay is little complex. It is said that when the appellant sought legal assistance for filing of the appeal, he had already come about 40 days after the expiry of the limitation period. He said that the delay on his part was caused due to the lack of communication between him and his Advocate appearing in the first appellate Court. He said he did not receive communication in time. He said he was out of town. The remaining delay, it is said, is caused (2) CA. 4362.2009 due to the lapse on the part of the Advocate who prepared the application etc., but could not file it immediately. He filed it after about 200 days. 2] The reasons are not quite convincing, but I am condoning the delay firstly because there is no opposition from the other side. Secondly because this way, the parties would be allowed to agitate their grievance on merits. The application stands allowed. Sd/- (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) arp