1 C.A.NO. 5781/2009. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5781 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.898 OF 2008. Jangirkhan s/o Noorkhan and others ...Applicants. VERSUS Babukhan s/o Hussainkhan and others. ...Respondents. ... Mr.K.T.Shirurkar, Advocate for the applicants. Mr.D.K.Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent Nos.2-A to 2C, & respondent No.3 to 6. ... CORAM: A.V.NIRGUDE,J. Date : 26th August, 2009. COURT’S ORDER: 1. This application is seeking condonation of delay of 191 days in filing of the Second Appeal. The delay is caused mainly because instead of filing the Second Appeal, the appellants had filed Writ Petition against the impugned order and the said Writ Petition remained pending for about eight months and ultimately it was 2 C.A.NO. 5781/2009. dismissed, as not maintainable. Immediately thereafter, the Second Appeal came to be filed. The appellants are apparently entitled to benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. 2. Mr.Kulkarni, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents, opposed the application saying that the filing of the Writ Petition, keeping it pending for eight months etc., would not show, “due diligence” on the part of the appellants. He said, unless the "due diligence" is exhibited through the conduct of the appellants, the condition of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, would not be complied with. He, therefore, argued that the application should be rejected. I am afraid, this argument is rather far fetch. 3. The appellants entirely depended on their legal adviser, who chose wrong forum and it is again, he who did not realise the error on his part and probably, persisted in keeping Writ Petition pending for eight long months. The error on his part, can not be attributed to the appellants. They deserve condonation of delay in view of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The application is allowed as prayed for. (A.V.NIRGUDE,J.) lkp