:1: :1: :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2025 OF 2007 Narendra Kundlik Thorat .. Petitioner. Vs. Kundlik Laxman Thorat & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.V.B.Tapkir for the petitioner. Mr.R.M.Hardas i/b Mr.P.N.Joshi for the respondents. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 12TH FEBRUARY, 2008. DATED : 12TH FEBRUARY, 2008. DATED : 12TH FEBRUARY, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule, returnable forthwith. 3. By consent of the parties taken up for final hearing. Mr.Hardas, learned counsel waives service for the respondents. 4. This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 7.2.2007 passed by the appellate court rejecting civil miscellaneous application No.119 of 2006 filed by the petitioner-defendant for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. I perused the appliction for condonation of delay and more particularly paragraph 3 thereof. From perusal of the said paragraph it appears that the petitioner was physically unwell and mentally disturbed and as a result of which he could not attend the suit which ultimately came to be :2: :2: :2: decreed exparte. I perused the impugned judgment and other material placed before me. The legislature has conferred the powers to condone delay by enacting section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on merits. It is well settled that the expression "sufficient cause" employed is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice. The petitioner-defendant, in the present case, did not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. It cannot be presumed that the delay has occasioned deliberately. Even if it is assumed that the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay by the petitioner are not entirely correct and sufficient, keeping in view that the petitioner claims substantive right in the suit property, the delay in the present case deserves to be condoned on payment of costs. This court while issuing notice on 2nd April, 2007 had directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.5,000/- payable to the respondents. In the circumstances I pass the following order: . The order impugned in the instant petition is set aside. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Civil miscellaneous application No.119 of 2006 is allowed with costs of Rs.5,000/-. The :3: :3: :3: respondent-plaintiff is allowed to withdraw the costs of Rs.5,000/- deposited in this court in pursuance of the order dated 2nd April, 2007. The appellate court shall decide the appeal on merits and strictly in accordance with law. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)