1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Civil Revision Application No.113/2007 APPLICANT : Chirkut s/o Nanuji Chawade, Aged about 64 years, occupation : Agriculturist, R/o Village : Gahu Niwara, Tah. Parseoni, Distt. Nagpur. // VERSUS // NON-APPLICANTS : 1) Smt.Kausalyabai wd/o Bhaurao Chawade, Aged about : 68 years, Occupation : Household. 2) Smt.Mirabai w/o Chandrabhan Barve, Aged about : 45 years, Occupation : Household. Both resident of Village : Gahu Hiwara, Tah. Parseoni, Distt. Nagpur. 3) Dilip s/o Harischandra Margade, Aged , resident of Kandri, P.S. Kanhan, Tahsil : Parseoni. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri N.N.Mothghare, Advocate for applicant. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 18/06/2008. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally. 2 2. Shri Mothghare, learned counsel for applicant has made a statement that he has deposited costs of Rs.3000/- (Rs.Three thousand only) pursuant to order dt. 05/12/2007. He further submits that the valuation of suit itself is Rs.45,000/-. 3. On 28th June 2007, the appellate court made an order condoning the delay caused in filing appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Delay was condoned subject to payment of costs of Rs. 300/- by applicant to the respondents. Learned counsel for the applicant states that through inadvertence, the said amount of Rs.300/- could not be deposited and therefore, another application dated 31/07/2007 was filed for extension of time to deposit the said amount of cost of Rs.300/-, but that application came to be rejected by the impugned order. Learned counsel for applicant submits that that was the first default for which the applicant should not be punished. 4. None appears for respondents, though served with the notice of final disposal. For the reasons furnished in the revision petition and in view of what is stated by learned counsel for applicant, I am satisfied that one opportunity should be afforded to applicant to make payment of costs. It is settled position of law 3 that for the fault of lawyer, no party should be allowed to suffer. After all, right to appeal cannot be allowed to frustrate on account of default as has happened in the present case. Hence, the following order would subserve the ends of justice. The impugned order is set aside. The application dated 31.7.2007 preferred by the applicant is allowed. Time to deposit costs of Rs. 300/- in the Appellate Court is extended by ten days from today. Since none the respondent has put in appearance, the applicant would be entitled to refund of Rs.3000/- (Rs. Three thousand only) deposited by him in this Court pursuant to the order dated 05/12/2007. Civil Revision Application is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE VMC