1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 489 OF 2002 IN SECOND APPEAL STAMP NO. 16429 OF 2001 Pirabai W/o Moglaji Gogde, and another .. .. Applicants Versus Mallu S/o Piraji Borod and others .. .. Respondents Shri A. G. Godhamgaonkar, Advocate for the Applicant. Shri U. B. Bilolikar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3. CORAM : N. D. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 26TH NOVEMBER, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1. Heard Shri Godhamgaonkar, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant and Shri Bilolikar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3. There is delay of 31 days caused in filing the second appeal and, therefore, this application is construed for further extension of period of limitation by 31 days on certain grounds mentioned in paragraph 6 and 7 of the application. 2. The plaintiffs are coming from remote village and very poor 2 community. The plaintiff for filing suit was given legal aid of Rs. 400/- by State Legal Aid Committee. There was no delay when plaintiffs filed First Appeal. They also face some difficulty for filing second appeal. The delay has been also explained by giving reasons. While considering such request for extension of period of limitation, it is to be seen whether there was sufficient cause prevented the appellant from coming to Court in time and the same should be explained and not required to be proved by evidence. Normally, such applications are supported and substantiated by affidavit. Moreover, appeal is continuation of original proceeding and admittedly, there is room for condonation of delay or extension of time at the initial stage of the filing of the suit. 3. Considering this legal position and delay having been explained, the application deserves to be allowed. The application is allowed. The delay of 31 days caused in filing the second appeal is condoned. The civil application is accordingly disposed of. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] bsb/Nov. 09