1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR C.A.S.NO.490 of 2009 in S.A.ST.NO.7509 OF 2009. Purushottam Vitthalrao Tarekar and other ..vs.. Sk.Abas s/o Sk.Gulab (dead) through L.Rs. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr.Abhay Sambre Adv.for the appellants. Mr.V.S.Bapat Adv. for the respondents. C ORAM : C.L.Pangarkar, J. DATED : 6th April, 2010. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents. This application has been filed for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal. The appeal came to be decided on 31st of January, 2008. The contention of the appellants is that although they had engaged the lawyer, the lawyer did not appear before the court and did not contest the appeal at all and also did not inform the present appellant about the dismissal of their appeal. It is the contention of the appellants that the appellants came to know of dismissal of the 2 appeal only in the last week of November, 2008. It is their contention that they had asked the lawyer to apply for the certified copies. Even after the certified copies were applied for and the papers were demanded, the lawyer had refused to give the papers and the certified copy. It is contended that the delay has been caused due to this reason. The next reason that is submitted is that thereafter the appellants had to arrange for court fees and the lawyer fees and some time was lost in it. The learned counsel for the respondents opposes the application and submits that there is no sufficient cause for condoning the delay and that has not been properly explained. After having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents, it appears that the appellants have made a complaint to the Bar Council of the Maharashtra against the counsel for having failed to inform the decision and having refused to handover the copies and the papers. The fact that such a complaint has been made to the Bar Council of Maharashtra clearly suggests that there is some substance in the contention of the appellants. It appears that there was no deliberate delay on the part of the appellants. However, it appears that after the certified copies were obtained, the appellants were not very 3 prompt in filing the appeal. Taking into consideration this, I find that the ends of justice would be met if the appellants are directed to pay costs of Rs.2000/- to be paid to the respondents within period of fifteen days. The application is allowed. The delay is condoned. JUDGE. chute