1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION(A) NO. 126/2010 IN APPEAL AGAINST ORDER STAMP NO. 15341/2009 Balkish Bano RahimKhan and Others Vs. Fatimabi Sk. Mehboob Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's Orders Shri A.S. Chandurkar, Adv for petitioner. Shri S.S.Deshpande, Adv for respondents. CORAM: R. K. DESHPANDE J. Dated: 4 th October, 2010. This is an application for condonation of 35 days delay caused in filing appeal against the order. In para 4 of the application the reasons are stated for seeking condonation of delay. The said paragraph is reproduced below. 4. It is submitted that applicant o.3 who was pursuing he matter on behalf of all the applicants, while instructing the counsel to challenge the order dated 27.4.2010 in MJC no. 32/2010, failed to bring to the notice of the counsel that there were two similar proceedings, both of which came to be decided on the very same day. Therefore, instructions were given to the counsel to prefer appeal only as regards the order dated 27.4.2010 passed in MJC no. 2 32/2010.This was a bona fide mistake. The applicant no.3 being an uneducated, he merely handed over papers pertaining to MJC No.33/2010 and failed to instruct the counsel to challenge the similar order passed in MJC No. 32/2010. After copy of judgment dated 20.7.2010 was received by the applicants and same was handed over to the counsel at Akola, a query was made by said counsel regrading the fate of proceedings in MJC No.33/2010. At that point of time, it was realized that for want of instructions o proceedings were filed to challenge the orders passed in MJC no.33/2010. Due to this, the execution proceedings before the executing court progressed and it was then realized that the applicant no.3 had not given any instructions to prefer Appeal against Order in so far as the order dated 27.4.2010 in MJC. No.33/2010 was concerned. Hence immediate steps were taken and due instructions were given to prefer Appeal against said order. Thus, delay of about......days has been caused in preferring the present Appeal against the order. The said delay is not deliberate or intentional. It has been caused on account of the fact that the applicant no.3 who was pursuing the matter on behalf of all the applicants, is uneducated and cannot read English hence he could not instruct his counsel to prefer two appeals and accordingly gave instructions at the earlier point of time to challenge the order dated 27.4.2010 passed in MJC. No. 32/2010. The decree is one for possession and hence if delay is not condoned, the said decree would be executed thereby causing grave prejudice to the rights of the present applicants. It is, therefore prayed that the delay as occasioned may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice and the proceedings be adjudicated on merits. 2. Shri Deshpande, the learned counsel appearing for respondent, opposes the application for condonation of delay. He submits that the grounds stated above are false and it is the case of negligence on the part of the appellants and hence there is no sufficient cause made out for condonation of delay. 3. After going through the averments made in para 4 reproduced above, I am satisfied that sufficient cause has been made out for 3 condonation of delay. Hence, the application is allowed. Delay is condoned. The application stands disposed of. JUDGE Hirekhan