1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR C.A.F. NO.930/2009 IN F.A. St. No. 5610/2009 (Smt. Suman @ Vasundhara Manohar Kolarkar & others VERSUS Sunil Rambhau Keskar) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri R.P. Joshi, counsel for the applicants. Shri D.P. Jaiswal h/f Shri R.L. Khapre, counsel for the N.A. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 11, 2009. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By this civil application, the applicants seek condonation of delay of 1780 days in filing the first appeal. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the applicants that the judgment, which is sought to be challenged in the first appeal was delivered by the trial Court on 17.02.2004. The original defendant had gone missing during the pendency of the suit on 27.09.2003 and his wife had given a public notice about her husband going missing on 26.01.2004. The paper cutting is annexed to the application. It appears that the original defendant died on 13.12.2004. The respondent-plaintiff had also filed another first appeal bearing First Appeal no.430/2005. The appeal was admitted on 26.08.2005. The legal heirs of original 2 defendants/the present applicants were brought on record in the first appeal filed by the respondent. Though the legal heirs were brought on record, they merely became aware of the filing of the first appeal by the other side and at that relevant time, it was original defendant’s father, who was looking after the matter. The defendant’s father, however, expired on 27.01.2009. It is the case of the applicants that the applicants are economically and educationally backward and they had not actually perused the case papers in the suit after they had received the notice of admission of the appeal filed by the respondent. After the defendant’s father expired on 27.01.2009, the applicants started looking after the matter and they became aware about the gravity of the situation after a Civil Application No.368/2009 was filed in the first appeal by the respondent. It is after the receipt of the application in that first appeal that the applicants became aware of the entire matter and the record in the trial Court was inspected. The certified copies with certain documents were obtained on 20.02.2009. Since the applicants doubted the signature of the defendant on various documents filed in the trial Court, they sent the said documents to the handwriting expert for his opinion. The handwriting expert’s opinion was obtained on 18.03.2009 and immediately 3 thereafter, the first appeal was filed on 30.03.2009 along with this civil application for condonation of delay. According to the learned counsel for the applicants, though the delay is huge, it is bona fide and is sufficiently explained. Learned counsel Shri Jaiswal, the learned counsel for the non-applicant, opposes the prayer made in the civil application and submits that nothing has been done by the applicant for a period of almost four years after the admission of their appeal on 26.08.2005. In any case, according to the learned counsel for the non-applicants, heavy costs may imposed on the applicants in case, the civil application is allowed. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the civil application and the documents annexed thereto, it appears that the applicants have made out sufficient cause for condonation of the huge delay caused in filing the first appeal. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the delay in filing the appeal needs to be condoned subject to the payment of costs of Rupees Five Thousand to the respondent within a period of one week from the date of this order. The costs may be paid to the counsel for the respondent for the sake of convenience. 4 The civil application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and disposed of. JUDGE APTE