cra195.11 1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD _____________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________ CRA NO. 195 OF 2011 KISHOR @ SUNDAR RUPCHAND GUJAR VERSUS ARCHANA KISHOR @ SUNDAR GUJAR ... Advocate for Petitioner(s) : Mr. Barde P.V. ... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. Dated: September 08, 2011 ... This civil revision application has been filed challenging the order dated 23rd June, 2011 below application for condonation of delay in Civil Misc. Application No.106/2010 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Dhule. 2 The learned Counsel for the revision applicant submits that on 15th September, 2009 decree of nullity was passed , the applicant re- married on 22nd February, 2010 and then the appeal has been filed on 5th October, 2010. He submits that because of subsequent events, the appeal itself has become infructuous and there is cra195.11 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD _____________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________ no use of proceeding with the appeal. The appellate Court should have considered the subsequent event after the decree of nullity was passed and the position appearing between the parties. The appellate Court should have considered that the respondent has not mentioned in the application for condonation of delay as to in what manner the Advocate for the respondent herein was negligent in prosecuting the case of the respondent. The learned Counsel for the revision applicant, therefore, submits that this Court may entertain this civil revision application. 3 I have given due consideration to the submissions of the learned Counsel for the applicant and perused the impugned order passed by the appellate Court. The appellate Court in paragraphs 9 and 10 has considered large number of decisions of this Court and also the Supreme Court wherein point of delay has been considered. The Court has adverted to the cra195.11 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD _____________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________ contentions of the applicant in para 11 and in para 13, the appellate Court has relied on the reported judgment in case of Sanerao Sadashivrao Patil and another vs. Godawaribai w/o Laxmansingh Gahirewar (2001(1) BCJ 11) and reproduced the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court and this Court while interpreting the concept of sufficient cause. In para 14, the contention of the applicant about second marriage and its effect on decree has been considered and the Court has observed that they are the matters to be considered while deciding the matter on merits. In para 15, the appellate Court has reached to the conclusion that in the interest of justice, delay needs to be condoned and respondent herein - original appellant is required to be given an opportunity to contest the matter on merits. 4 On independent scrutiny also, I find that the view of the appellate Court is reasonable and possible view. The length of delay is not matterial but, the sufficient cause mentioned in cra195.11 4 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD _____________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________ the application for condonation of delay is necessary to be looked into. In the instant case, the ground taken by the respondent that due to mistake of her Advocate, she could not get knowledge, cannot be said to be a ground which is not sufficient to condone the delay. Because of the mistake of the advocate, client should not suffer. Not only this but, all other aspects have been considered by the appellate Court. Therefore, in my opinion, in civil revision application, this Court should be slow in interfering in such orders condoning the delay. 5 Therefore, for the above reasons, I do not find any merit in the civil revision application and same stands rejected. (S.S. SHINDE, J.) PLK/*