1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6140 OF 2009 Rubabbi w/o. Harun Shah Barphiwale Died through L.Rs. & ors. ....Applicants. Versus Sarjerao s/o. Bhagwan Shelke & ors. ....Respondents. Mr. V.C. Solshe, Advocate for applicants. Mr. S.N. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1,2A,2B and 3. CORAM: R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATED: 17th November, 2009. PER COURT : 1. Heard Shri. Solshe, the learned counsel for the applicants. This is an application for condonation of 6170 days delay, caused in filing an application for setting aside the abatement. The respondent No. 3, who is the original defendant No. 2, has expired. The applicants are the legal representatives of respondent No. 3. This was a suit filed by the respondent No. 1, the original plaintiff, challenging the sale deed dated 24.6.1974 at Exh. 110, executed by the original defendant No. 1 in favour of the original defendant No. 3. The respondent No 3, who has expired, is the real brother of the plaintiff. Therefore, in view of this, the right to sue survives in favour of the present applicants. 2. The application states the reason for seeking condonation of delay as that on 10.2.2009 the counsel for the appellant informed the appellant that the matter is listed for final hearing. At that time the 2 applicants came to know that the instant appeal was pending. The applicants immediately approached the counsel and informed that the respondent No. 3 has expired and therefore, the application has been moved. 3. The respondents are served. However, none of them have filed the reply, opposing the application. Shri. Kulkarni, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1, the original plaintiff, orally opposes the application by stating that the applicants were well aware of the pendency of this appeal as well as the death of the respondent No. 3. However, in spite of having knowledge, the application has not been moved within stipulated period. Hence, according to him, the application needs to be dismissed. 4. In view of the fact that, the right to sue survives in favour of the applicants, no prejudice will be caused, if the delay is condoned. Apart from that I am satisfied after going through the contents of the application that sufficient cause has been made out for condonation of delay. Hence, the delay caused in filing the instant application is condoned. The abatement is set aside. The application stands disposed of. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J.] ssc/ca6140.09