( 1 ) sa170.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 170 OF 2011 Santaram s/o. Kashiba Yadav .. Appellant Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. B.S. Kudale, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. V.G. Shelke, A.G.P. for respondent/State. Mr. M.M. Bhokarikar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 & 4. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 20.06.2011 P.C. :- 1. This Second Appeal challenges the order passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge-1, Majalgaon, dated 22.02.2011, refusing to condone the delay of 37 days occurred in filing of the First Appeal. 2. The appellant was one of the plaintiffs. The suit was dismissed at the trial stage and the appellant tried to persuade other plaintiffs to come with him for filing of the First Appeal. They somehow did not agree and in the process ( 2 ) sa170.11 of negotiation the filing of the appeal got delayed by 37 days. The learned District Judge stated that this would not be a good ground for condoning the delay. He even quoted judgment of this Court in the case of Kamlabai w/o. Nara Saiyya Shrimal Vs. Ganpat s/o. Vithalrao Gavare, 2007 (1) Mh.L.J. 807, wherein according to him it was held that the delay would not be condoned only on the ground that it was not an intentional. The learned Judge held that there must be some cause which could be termed as sufficient one for condoning the delay. I am afraid, the ratio of the judgment as mentioned above is not applicable to the present case. The appellant in my view has sufficiently explained the delay. The respondent Nos.6 to 9 were his co-plaintiffs. It was the case of the plaintiffs at the trial stage that they were owners of the suit land and are entitled to declaration etc. When the suit was dismissed, all the plaintiffs together had a right to file appeal against such dismissal and so the appellant would certainly make efforts to persuade other plaintiffs to join him for filing of the appeal. There could be some reasons why other plaintiffs were not inclined to join him as the appellants. The Court need not go into such ( 3 ) sa170.11 reasons. The Court must appreciate the predicament of a party in such situation. If in such circumstances one of the plaintiffs could not file the appeal within limitation, the learned Judge of the Appeal Court should be able to appreciate such a genuine difficulty. The learned Judge of the First Appeal Court should have been more considerate while appreciating the circumstances due to which the delay was caused. In my view, the application should have been allowed and the delay should have been condoned. The appeal, therefore, should succeed. 3. The appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The delay of 37 days caused in filing of the First Appeal stands condoned. The appeal be registered. The learned Judge shall register the appeal and dispose it of on merits. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] snk/2011/JUN11/sa170.11