1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1402 OF 2009 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST) NO. 25593 OF 2009 Chembur Service Station ... Applicant v/s Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. ... Respondent Mr.Jawahar J. Thakker for the applicant. Mr.Minoo Siodia i/by Rustamji & Ginwala for the respondent. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 1ST FEBRUARY, 2010 P.C.: 1. The application has been filed for condoning the delay of 98 days’. This application has been opposed by the respondents by contending that sufficient cause has not been shown by the applicants for condoning the delay. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the advocate for the applicants had informed the applicants that he would not be able to undertake the responsibility of appearance for the applicants in the matter in view of his ill-health. It is submitted that the applicants ought to then have approached 2 another advocate for filing their appeal within the period of limitation. 2. The applicants have stated in the civil application that all the connected matters in the present appeal were handled by the present advocate and it was for this reason that they waited till he recovered and have approached this Court immediately thereafter. It is true that the applicants could have approached another advocate. However, they have mentioned a plausible reason for insisting or continuing with their present advocate. In my opinion, sufficient cause has been shown by the applicants for not presenting the appeal within the period of limitation. 3. For the reasons stated in the civil application, it is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). 4. List the appeal from order for admission on 22.2.2010. ..... 3