1 23.cas1212.1213.11 ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1212 OF 2011 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 500 OF 1991 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1213 OF 2011 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 501 OF 1991 Suhas Shivaji Patil & ors. etc. ....Applicants. Vs. Nagnath Pandurang Babar. Etc. ....Respondent. Ms. Aparna Murlidharan h/f. Mr. P.G. Lad, Advocate for Applicants. Mr. Sukumar Ghanvat h/f. Mr. Umesh Mankapure, Advocate for Respondents. CORAM:- GIRISH GODBOLE, J DATED:- SEPTEMBER 7, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard Ms. Murlidharan, Advocate for Applicant and Mr. Ghanvat Respondents. 2. Mr. Mankapure appears for the sole Respondent in Second Appeal No. 500 of 1991 who is Respondent No. 5 in Second Appeal No. 501 of 1991. He also appears for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in Second Appeal No. 2 23.cas1212.1213.11 501 of 1991. 3. The Applications are opposed by the Advocate for the Respondents by contending that delay is not properly explained. 4. I have considered the submissions. The averments in paragraphs – 3 to 6 of the Civil Applications clearly indicate that only when this Court passed an order on 10/6/2011 for filing of the paper book and synopsis, the Advocate for the Appellant tried to contact the deceased Appellant and at that time, the heirs of the Appellant learnt about pendency of the Appeal. Thereafter, without any further delay both Civil Applications have been filed. Hence, a case for condonation of delay and setting aside abatement is made out. Both the Applications are allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c). Amendment in the cause title of the Second Appeals to be carried out forthwith in the court. Vakalatnama filed in the Civil Applications should be transferred to the proceedings of the Second Appeals and will be treated as vakalatnama filed in the Second Appeal. (GIRISH GODBOLE, J)