:1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 3997 OF 2009 PETITION NO. 3997 OF 2009 PETITION NO. 3997 OF 2009 Mr. Sudhir Bapu Jadhav & Anr. ... Petitioners. V/s. Abdullah Majid Saheb Jendi Since deceased; 1. Smt. Fatima Abdullah Jendi & Ors. ... Respondents. Decree Holders Heirs of Orig. Plaintiff. And Smt. Indirabai Tanaji Sawant Since deceased. ... Judgment Debtor. Defendant. Mr. M.N. Dhamal for the Petitioners. Mr. B.M. Salunkhe for the Respondents. ..... CORAM CORAM CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. 17TH 17TH 17TH APRIL 2009. APRIL 2009. APRIL 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : . Rule. Respondents waive service. 2. The Application for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal which was directed against an Obstructionist Notice having been dismissed the aggrieved parties are in Writ Jurisdiction before me. 3. I have heard both sides and perused the impugned order. To my mind, the Lower Appellate Court has committed an error apparent in refusing to condone the delay. It is not as if the cause shown was not sufficient. Ultimately, these are obstructionist proceedings and the Obstructionist Notice was made absolute in the absence of the Petitioner - Appellant is the grievance. The Judgment and Decree of the Executing :2: Court is dated 3rd July 2008. Thereafter, the Appeal has been preferred and the delay explained. There was nothing on record which disentitles the Petitioner - Appellant from seeking condonation of delay in the peculiar facts of this case. Their conduct is cannot be said to be such as would disentitle them from any equitable and discretionary relief. The Application does not lack bonafides either. The merits of the Appeal is not something which should have been influenced the Lower Appellate Court in arriving at the conclusion. 4. In the above circumstances, the Application for condonation of delay is allowed. The delay stands condoned subject to payment of costs quantified at Rs. 2000/- to be paid on or before 28th April 2009. The order under challenge is set aside. The Appeal of the Petitioners stands restored to the file of the Lower Appellate Court for disposal on merits and in accordance with law. 5. The Petitioner states that they would co-operate in early and expeditious disposal of the Appeal. If the Petitioners - Appellants appear before the Lower Appellate Court on 28th April 2009, the Lower Appellate Court to take up the Appeal and dispose off the same as expeditiously as possible and in any event by 30th June 2009. All contentions on merits are kept open. The Petition is allowed on the aforesaid terms. :3: 6. The Respondents’ Counsel makes a statement that till 30th June 2009, he will not taken steps to dispossess the Petitioners from the subject premises. Statement accepted. In the light of the same, no interim orders need to be granted in the pending Appeal. (S.C. (S.C. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.) DHARMADHIKARI,J.) DHARMADHIKARI,J.)