: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2844 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.15928 OF 2009 Anil Anant Surve .. Applicant V/s. Banarasi Gurudutt Barai & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. S.D. Patil for the Applicant. Mr. Ketan Joshi i/b. Mrs. Neeta Karnik for the Respondents. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 15 TH SEPTEMBER, 2009. P.C.: 1. The Civil Application has been filed for condoning the delay of 85 days in presenting the First Appeal. The decree was passed on 9th January, 2009. The applicant has stated that he became aware of the judgment and order of the trial court only on 10th April, 2009 after which he applied for a certified copy and obtained it on 13th June, 2009. According to the applicant, the delay in presenting the First Appeal has occurred because he was not aware of the decision in the matter in the trial court which was delivered on 9th January, 2009. : 2 : 2. The application is opposed by the respondents by contending that the trial court Advocate had informed the applicant by his letter dated 13th July, 2007 that he had not got any instructions from the applicant and that he would be constrained to withdraw his vakalatnama if no instructions were available. It appears that on 27th November, 2007, the Advocate appearing for the applicant in the trial court has placed on record a “no instructions purshis”. However, there is no material on record to indicate that the Advocate had withdrawn his appearance for the applicant. In this situation, unless the applicant was aware that the trial court Advocate had withdrawn his appearance, it cannot be said that the contentions of the applicant in the present application regarding his knowledge of the decree are incorrect. 3. The Civil Application is allowed. The delay is condoned on payment of costs quantified at Rs.1,000/-. Costs to be paid within a period of two weeks from today. The First Appeal to be numbered : 3 : and placed for admission after the costs are paid. The learned Advocate for the respondents states that instead of the costs being paid over to the respondents, it should be paid to the State Legal Services Committee. The suggestion is accepted. 4. The Civil Application is disposed of. .......