1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4909 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 36155 OF 2003 Smt. Vinayatbee w/o Isa Beg & anr. ..Applicants (Claimants) VERSUS Smt. Jaswantkaur w/o Jogindersingh Niranjansingh and ors. ..Respondents (Orig.Resps.) ..... Shri B.G.Deshmukh, advocate for the applicants Shri K.V.Kulkarni, advocate for respondent nos. 2 and 3 Application against Resp.no.1 dismissed. ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 6th November, 2009 PER COURT : 1 Perused. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. Heard respective counsel for the parties. 2 The applicants have preferred the present application for condonation of delay of 177 days occurred in filing the accompanying First Appeal, challenging the judgment and award 2 dated 28.2.2003 rendered by learned III Additional District Judge, Nanded, in M.A.C.P. No.538 of 1999. 3 The applicants submit that although the judgment and award was passed on 28.2.2003, they got the knowledge thereof in March, 2003 and accordingly they applied for certified copies on 21.3.2003, which were received by the applicants on 16.4.2003 and thereafter they filed the accompanying First Appeal on 19.12.2003 after the delay of about 177 days and, therefore, they have preferred the present application for condonation of the said delay. 4 The applicants submit that the applicants are widowed women and they have no other source of income except the agricultural income and their financial condition is very poor. The applicants also submit that they are uneducated and due to paucity of funds they could not file the accompanying First Appeal within the prescribed period of limitation and hence, prayed for condonation of said delay. 5 Learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 has opposed the present application vehemently and submitted that the present application bears no substance and same is devoid of 3 any merits and same be rejected. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that poorness is no ground for condonation of delay and applicants could have approached the Legal Aid Committee for legal assistance to file the accompanying First Appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. 6 Considering the averments in the present application and also considering the rival submissions of the parties, it appears that the applicants are widowed women and they are uneducated and their financial condition is poor. Hence, the applicants have explained the cause for delay satisfactorily and properly in the application, more particularly in para 4 thereof. Moreover, the delay occurred in filing the accompanying First Appeal does not appear to be intentional, deliberate and willful and, therefore, same deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice. 7 In the circumstances, the present application deserves to be allowed and accordingly same stands allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘A’ thereof and delay of 177 days caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal stands condoned. The accompanying First Appeal be registered and numbered accordingly. Rule is made absolute accordingly. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) dbm/ca4909.04 4