ca1190.08.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Civil Application No. 1190/2008 in Second Appeal St. No. 19056/2007 Shrikrishna Motiramjee Dike & ors. ..vs.. Smt. Tarabai Sukhdeo Dike & ors. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Mr. Saboo, Advocate for applicants. Mr. Kale, Advocate for non applicant no.2. Coram: R. K. Deshpande, J. Date : February 18, 2010 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This application is filed for condonation of four days' delay caused in filing the Second Appeal. Notice on this civil application was issued on 16.02.2008. Mr. Kale, appears for non applicant no.2. Although, other non applicants are served, none appears for them. 3. This matter was heard on 04.02.2010. It is urged by Mr. Kale that the delay caused was not of four days, it was for the days much more than that and it has not been explained in the application. It was further urged that the date on which certified copy was applied, the date on which certified copy was received, the date on which appeal was filed were all missing in the application. There was no sufficient cause made out for condonation of delay. ca1190.08.odt 2 4. The matter was adjourned at the request of learned counsel for the applicants to file additional affidavit. Accordingly, an affidavit has been filed by applicants on 08.02.2010. Following aspects are not in dispute in the present matter. On 19.07.2007, judgment and order impugned in this appeal was delivered by appellate Court. The limitation for preferring the appeal is of 90 days prescribed. It expired on 18.10.2007. Certified Copy produced on record indicate that an application for certified copy was filed on 01.08.2007 and it was delivered on 14.08.2007. The appeal was filed on 19.11.2007. Since, the office had raised an objection regarding four days' delay caused in filing appeal, this application is placed today for orders. 5. Mr. Kale, learned counsel for non applicant no. 2, submitted that bare perusal of the affidavit makes it clear that the applicants have tried to misrepresent this Court and the dates mentioned therein clearly indicate that there was delay of more than 4 days. He refers to the date of the order passed by lower appellate Court, which is mentioned in para 2 of the affidavit as 19.07.2005. Mr. Saboo, learned counsel for the applicants submits that it is an typographical error and ca1190.08.odt 3 it should be 19.07.2007. In view of non disputed position that the judgment was delivered on 19.07.2007, the date is to be taken as 19.07.2007 instead of 19.07.2005. Mr. Kale, learned counsel for non applicant no.2 further urged that para 2 of the affidavit indicate that the application for certified copy was ready on 01.08.2009 and it was delivered on 14.08.2009. Again Mr. Saboo submits that it is typographical error and it should be read as 01.08.2007 and 14.08.2007. Perusal of the certified copy shows that date for application in certified copy was made on 01.08.2007 and it was delivered on 14.08.2007. Accordingly, the said dates are taken into account. Mr. Kale, learned counsel for non applicant no.2, further submits that even if it is assumed that there was four days' delay, no explanation has been given in the application. 6. After going through the contents of the application as well as affidavit, I am satisfied that sufficient cause is made out for condonation of delay. Hence, the application is allowed. The delay caused is condoned. The application stands disposed of accordingly. J UDGE kahale