(1) CA. 12933.2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12933 OF 2008 IN SECOND APPEAL (ST.) NO. 19873 OF 2008 Shivaji S/o Kisan Suryawanshi and ors. .. Applicants VERSUS Gajanan S/o Anandrao Suryawanshi and ors. .. Respondents Mrs. S.G. Chincholkar, Advocate for the applicants- appellants Mr. G.G. Kadam, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2 None present for other respondents though served CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 10TH SEPTEMBER, 2009 P.C.:- 1] Heard. The appellants seek condonation of 74 days delay occurred in filing of this Second Appeal. Amongst the three appellants, it is said the appellant no.2 is in charge of this litigation. It is said that the appellant no.1 Shivaji does not stay at his native place, but has gone to Mumbai in search of employment. The appellant no.3, is a 69 year old, mother of the appellant nos. 1 and 2. . The appellant no.1 said that soon after the First Appeal was dismissed, there occurred a violent (2) CA. 12933.2008 incident between him and the respondent no.1. He said he and his wife sustained injuries and were taken to hospital. Thereafter, he said the appellant no.3 suffered from hyper-tension and could not attend the matter of filing of the appeal. He said the appellant no.1, who happened to be at Mumbai could not be contacted in time. All these circumstances, caused delay in filing of the appeal. 2] The respondents opposed the application, mainly on the ground that the narration of the appellants is not believable. The learned Advocate appearing for the respondents even placed reliance on two judgments; firstly in the matter of Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. and others v. Gajrajkanvar Bajrangsinh Rajput others reported in AIR 1999 GUJARAT 147 and secondly in the matter of M/s. Rish Prabhat v. Delhi Development Authority reported in AIR 1995 DELHI 9. 3] The applications of such nature, should be decided with a view that the parties should get opportunity to oppose each other on merits rather than on technicality. Though, the narration of the appellants is not quite convincing, I am condoning the delay. The appellants should be saddled with costs, which would compensate the respondents. (3) CA. 12933.2008 4] The Civil Application is allowed, on payment of costs of Rs.1000/-. 5] Place the Second Appeal (St.) no. 19873 of 2008, for admission on 22.09.2009. Sd/- (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) arp