FARAD FARAD FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET. CONTINUATION SHEET. CONTINUATION SHEET. IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPLICATION No.1350 of 2006. IN FIRST APPEAL St. No.5337 of 2006. --------------------------------------------------- Office Notes,Office Court or Judge’s Order. Memorandum of Coram apperance,Court’s Orders & Directions and Registrar’s Order. ------------------------------------------------------ Mr. S.N. Gawade for the Applicant. Mr. S.R. Poge for Respdt.No.1. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: S.B.DESHMUKH,J. S.B.DESHMUKH,J. S.B.DESHMUKH,J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 18.9.200 18.9.200 18.9.2006. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 1] Heard the learned Counsel for the Parties. Permission to delete Respondent No.2 at the risk and request of the the Applicant is granted. Deletion be made forthwith. 2] The Applicants have explained the delay to the extent of 231 days caused in filing the First Appeal in para No. 3 and 4 of the Civil Application. 3] The learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 has filed Reply. 4] The applicants have alleged in the Application that Applicant No.2 is old woman and has been suffering from several ailments including hypertension, diabetes, etc. The Applicant No.2 is being treated by the Ashwini Naval Hospital at Colaba and she was also being treated by Dr. Ahluwalia. The Applicant no.2’s husband and father of Applicant Nos. 3 and 4 was serving in the Indian navy. after eviction of the Applicants from the petrol pump and cancellation of the authorisation due to tension, the ailment of Applicant No.2 was aggravated. The Applicants have, however, applied for certified copies of the Judgment and order passed by the Trial Court. Condition of Applicant No.2 day by day was serious and ultimately cancer was diagnosed. Applicant Nos. 3 and 4 were attending Applicant No.2 and therefore they could also not instruct Advocate for filing Appeal in this Court. 5] The learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that though Applicant No.2 was allegedly suffering from various ailments, Applicant Nos. 1, 3 and 4 could have filed Appeal in this Court. According to him, Appeal filed on behalf of the Applicants is also not maintainable. 6] Having heard the learned Counsel for the Parties and on perusal of the cause title of the Application, it appears that Applicant No.2 is about 60 years old on the date of filing of the Civil Application. The Applicants have filed Medical Certificate of Dr.Mahendra Navare which is annexed with the Application. The certificate seems to have been issued by the Medical Officer concerned on 23rd January, 2006. It appears from the medical certificate that Mrs. Pushpa Kanuga (Applicant No.2) was operated at Jaslok Hospital and Research Centre, Mumbai on 11th January, 2006. Lateron she was discharged on 16th January, 2006. Above treatment was also suggested and she was prescribed with Anticancer drugs. 7] Undisputedly, Applicant Nos.2, 3 and 4 are from one and the same family. Applicant Nos. 3 and 4 are sons of Applicant No.2. In the circumstances, and in my view, delay on the part of the Applicants in filing the First Appeal is properly explained. Delay alleged is also bonafide. It cannot be said to be a case of resorting to delaying tactics by the Applicants. The expression " sufficient cause" is considered by this Court and Apex Court time and again. The Judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of N.Balakrishnan N.Balakrishnan N.Balakrishnan Vs. Vs. Vs. M.Krishnamurthy, M.Krishnamurthy, M.Krishnamurthy, A.I.R.1998,S.C.3222 A.I.R.1998,S.C.3222 A.I.R.1998,S.C.3222 is relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Applicant. It is held by the Apex Court in para 13,as follows:- 13. ."It must remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of malafides or it is not putforth as part of a dilatory strategy the Court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. But when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time then the Court should lean against acceptance of the explanation. While condoning delay the Court should not forget the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a loser and he too would have incurred quite a large litigation expenses. It would be a salutary guide-line that when Courts condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant the Court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss." 8] In this view of the matter, delay of about 231 days occurred in filing the First Appeal is condoned. Civil Application is accordingly allowed and disposed of. [S.B.DESHMUKH,J.] [S.B.DESHMUKH,J.] [S.B.DESHMUKH,J.]