(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. SECOND APPEAL No. 328/2010 Mrs. Shamim Sultana Abdul Salam and others. VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others. ________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : 04.02.2011. Heard Shri Rohit Joshi, the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos.1 to 3. By the above Second Appeal, the appellants challenges the judgment and order dated 21.08.2009 passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge-4, Nagpur by which order the application for condonation of delay in filing the First Appeal came to be rejected. The decree passed by the learned trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 590/1991 is dated 26.07.2006. (2) Record discloses that the appellants had received the certified copy on 02.09.2006. Long thereafter the appeal came to be filed and an application for condonation of delay came to be filed on 23.04.2009. The sum and substance of the reasons is, that the applicant no.1 is widow and after the death of her husband, she had the burden of maintaining her children and she being a patient of diabetes, she could not file the Appeal within time, therefore, the delay of 935 days has occasioned. The First Appellate Court has considered the said application. The First Appellate Court has interalia taken into consideration the fact that all the applicants are major. The applicant no.3 is 25 years old and is doing business; applicant no.4 is a Teacher and applicant no.5 is a businessman and therefore, the case put up by the applicant no.1 that she was widow and she had burden of looking after the family, could not be accepted. The First Appellate Court therefore, did not deem it fit to exercise its discretion in favour of the appellant for condoning the huge delay of 935 days. Considering the conspectus of facts as above, in my view the discretion exercised by the First Appellate Court in rejecting the application for condonation of delay cannot be faulted with. In that view of the matter, the (3) above Second Appeal does not raise any substantial question of law, the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. JUDGE Rgd