1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR C.A.S No.871/2009 in Second Appeal St. No.17859/2009 ( Sau. Shama Jaiswal & others ..V/s.. Ashokkumar Jaiswal & others ) =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-== Mr. Rohit Joshi, counsel for the applicants. Mr. Mahajan, counsel for respondents. C ORAM : F.M. REIS, J. DATED : 13th January, 2010. Heard the learned counsel for applicants and respondents. This is an application for condonation of delay of 83 days in filing the second appeal against the decree dated 6/5/2009 passed by the learned District Judge, Nagpur in Regular Civil Appeal No.492/2006 The main ground for seeking condonation of delay is that initially there was a delay committed by the counsel in obtaining the certified copy of the impugned judgment and decree who was instructed by the applicants to obtain such copy. The counsel in view of summer vacation applied for certified copy only on 11th of June 2009. After certified copy was received, the applicants contacted the counsel and were advised to file a fresh application for certified copy. Thereafter on account of illness of the applicant no.1, who was looking after the in filing the second appeal, the further delay was caused. The said facts are supported by an affidavit by the applicant no.1. The respondents filed their reply opposing the said 2 application and contending that the applicants have been negligent in preferring the present appeal and as such no case has been made out for condoning the delay. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, I find that the applicants were prevented from filing the second appeal within the time prescribed on account of the reasons beyond their control as mentioned in the application. The counsel of the applicants had advised the appellants to seek for a fresh certified copy and the subsequent delay was on account of the illness of the applicant no.1. The respondents have not shown any fact to show that the applicants have deliberately delayed in filing the present appeal The law is well settled that the primary function of the Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. There is no material on record to show that the applicants should be lablled as irresponsible litigants or were lacking in bonafides. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the applicants have made out a sufficient cause for condoning the delay. In view of the above, the delay of 83 days in filing the second appeal is condoned subject to the payment of costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rs. One Thousand Only) to the respondents. Application stands disposed of. JUDGE. Tambaskar.