1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6094 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.23 OF 1999 Vithaldas Gangasankar Vyas .. Applicant V/s Madhusudan Gangashankar Vyas .. Respondent Mrs.S.M.Poddar i/by M/s.Mayur Narendra & Co.for the Applicant. CORAM: R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE: 6th August, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Applicant. This application is for condonation of delay of 355 days caused in filing this application as also for recalling the order dated 11th December, 2007 passed in Civil Application No.687 of 2003. By order dated 11th December, 2007 Civil Application No.687 of 2003 was dismissed in default. Civil Application No.687 of 2003 was filed for setting aside the order dated 12th July, 2002 passed in Civil Application No.2345 of 2002. Civil Application No.2345 of 2002 was dismissed on 12th July, 2002 as none appeared for the Applicant. The Court also recorded that no affidavit was filed indicating service upon the other side in terms of the order dated 12th June, 2002. In view of this, Civil Application No.2345 of 2002 was dismissed in default. Civil Application No.2345 of 2002 was filed for recalling of the order dated 7th February, 2002 by which the applicant was expected to take steps for removal of the office objections within eight weeks from the date of the order. The learned counsel for the Applicants states that only office objection was the delay in filing the certified copy of the judgment and decree dated 18th August, 1998. She further submitted that the companion appeal being Appeal No.18 of 1999 was admitted and the same is pending for final hearing and disposal. By order dated 15th January, 1999 the first appeal No.23 of 1999 was admitted and was ordered to be heard 2 alongwith the Appeal No.18 of 1999. 2. Respondent No.1 has filed affidavit opposing the application. It is contended that the applicant is not diligent in prosecuting the first appeal and the applications taken out by the applicant are consistently dismissed in default. It is prayed that the Civil Application may be dismissed. 3. It is not in dispute that the first appeal No.23 of 1999 was admitted and was ordered to be heard alongwith the first appeal No.18 of 1999. It is also not in dispute that the first appeal No.18 of 1999 is pending in this Court for final hearing and disposal. First appeal No.23 of 1999 is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 18th August, 1998 passed by the learned Judge of the Bombay City Civil Court in S.C.Suit No.3017 of 1987. Against the very judgment and decree, the first appeal No.18 of 1999 is preferred. The only office objection was filing of the certified copy of the decree belatedly. For condoning the delay in filing the certified copy of the decree, the Civil Application No.2345 of 2002 was filed. On that application, conditional order was passed on 7th February, 2002 to remove the office objections within eight weeks. Since the conditional order was not complied with, the civil application was dismissed in default on 12th July, 2002. Civil application No.687 of 2003 was filed for condonation of delay of 16 days as also for recalling the order dated 12th July, 2002. That application was dismissed on 11th December, 2007. 4. By present application, prayer is made for condonation of delay of 355 days and for recalling the order dated 11th December, 2007. Considering the aforesaid position, in my opinion, civil application deserves to be allowed subject to the payment of costs of Rs.3000/- to be paid to the High Court Legal Aid Fund. Civil Application No.6094 of 2008 is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b), subject to payment of costs as a condition precedent within two weeks from today. Civil Application No.687/2003 is restored to the file. (R.G.KETKAR, J.)