1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.2494 of 2008 Rajesh s/o Rupchand Manwani, Aged about 27 years, Occupation : Student and business, R/o Opp. Radhaswami Temple, Pakki Kholi, Sindhi Camp, Khadan Area, Akola, Tq. & Distt. Akola. ... Petitioner/ Ori. Appellant-Deft.No.2 Versus 1. Rajabhau s/o Shamrao Gore, Aged about 59 years, Occupation : Service. 2. Gopalrao s/o Shamrao Gore, Aged about 64 years, Occupation : Cultivator. 3. Bajirao s/o Shamrao Gore, Aged about 50 years, Occupation : Cultivator. 4. Madhukar s/o Shamrao Gore, Aged about 40 years, Occupation : Cultivator. (Ori. Plaintiffs Nos.1 to 4 respectively) Nos.1 to 4 r/o Opp. Brahman sabha Karyalaya, Jatharpeth, Akola, Tq. & Distt. Akola. 2 5. Ashok s/o Tannumal Manwani, Aged about 49 years, Occupation : Business, R/o Pakki Kholi, Sindhi Camp, Khadan Area, Akola, Tq. & Distt. Akola, (Ori. Defendant No.1.). 6. Sharda w/o Sachchanand Manwani, Aged about 42 years, Occupation : Household work, R/o Pakki Kholi, Near Radhaswami Mandir, Sindhi Camp, Akola, Tq. & Distt. Akola, (Ori. Defendant No.3.). 7. Sachchanand s/o Tannumal Manwani, Aged about 43 years, Occupation : Business, R/o Pakki Kholi, Sindhi Camp, Akola, Tq. & Distt. Akola, (Ori. Defendant No.4). ... Respondents Shri C.A. Joshi, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri Bhangde, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. Other Respondents served. CORAM : A.B. Chaudhari, J. DATE : 21st July, 2008 3 Oral Judgment : 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of parties. 2. This writ petition is directed against an order refusing to condone delay of 1 year 11 months and 8 days in filing Regular Civil Appeal before the District Judge. The learned Appellate Court found no sufficient reason for condoning the delay and that is why it rejected the application. 3. It appears that the appeal was filed late. The Appellate Court rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner was aware of the appeal filed by his uncle in the High Court and he was already a party to the appeal. But then according to me that by itself is not a good reason for rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The reason advanced by the petitioner for claiming condonation of delay was that he used to attend his College every day and hardly any time was left to take steps to file appeal. 4. In the absence of evidence in rebuttal from the respondents, this reason, in my opinion, was sufficient and the Appellate Court ought to have condoned the delay. After all, the important civil rights of the parties are required to be adjudicated upon merits. The respondents could have been compensated with costs. In the result, I make the following order : 5. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The delay in filing appeal is condoned. The appeal be registered as Regular Civil Appeal and heard expeditiously. The petitioner shall pay the costs of Rs.3,000/- to the 4 respondents, which shall be the condition precedent. 6. Rule is made absolute in above terms. JUDGE Lanjewar