1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Civil Application No. 1006/2004 Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. CORAM : Smt. V. A. Naik, J. DATED : March 23, 2007. By this civil application, the applicant seeks condonation of delay in filing the first appeal. It is stated in the civil application that though the impugned judgment and decree was passed on 30/8/2001, the applicant bona fide believed that the appeal against the impugned judgment lies before the District Judge, Washim. It is further stated that the applicant, therefore, filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Washim. Later on, when it was realised that the appeal would lie before this Court, the counsel for the applicant withdrew the first appeal on 7/4/2003. The applicant received the case papers on 17/4/2003. By an additional affidavit, it is also brought on record that the applicant was suffering from Jaundice from 19/4/2003 to 26/6/2003 and, therefore, she was unable to contact her counsel. Thereafter, the 2 applicant contacted her counsel and filed the first appeal on 8/7/2003. The applicant has filed the present application for condonation of delay, along with the first appeal. The respondent no.1 has filed her reply to the civil application and pleaded that the appeal is totally time barred. It is further submitted in the reply that during the pendency of the appeal, the possession of the suit property is already handed over to the respondent no.1. Shri Joshi, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant has not stated in the application as to when she got knowledge that the first appeal filed before the Additional District Judge, Washim, was not maintainable. I have perused the application, additional affidavit filed by the applicant, and the reply filed by the respondent no.1. The statements of facts made in the application are not specifically controverted by the respondent no.1 in her reply. Mere fact that the decree has been executed during the pendency of appeal before the District Judge, would not disentitle the applicant to seek the relief of condonation of delay in filing the appeal before this Court. The applicant has also filed the Medical 3 Certificate of the Doctor to show that the applicant was actually suffering from Jaundice from 19/4/2003 to 26/6/2003. The applicant was bonafide prosecuting the matter before a wrong forum and also was suffering from Jaundice thereafter. The applicant is, therefore, entitled for condonation of delay in filing the first appeal before this Court. Civil application is, therefore, allowed and disposed of accordingly. JUDGE RMP