1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR C. A. S. NO. 106 OF 2010 IN SECOND APPEAL ST. NO. 1566 OF 2010 Agrawal Finance India Vs. Sopan Ramratan Aade & Ano. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's Order Shri S. A. Saini Adv for appellant. CORAM:_ C. L. PANGARKAR J. Dated: 28 th APRIL, 2010. . Heard counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondents though duly served. This application has been filed for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal. It is stated that the appeal was presented before the District Judge but there was a delay in preferring the same. Said application was dismissed by the appellate Court but the said order was not communicated to the counsel for the appellant. As a result the appeal could not be preferred within limitation. Heard. It is stated that as soon as the appellant made an 2 enquiry and found that application for delay condonation has been rejected, he obtained certified copy and filed Writ Petition instead of Second Appeal. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Shyam Sunder Sarma Vs. Pannalal Jaiswal & Others AIR 2005, 226 it was found that the Writ Petition could not lie but the Second Appeal ought to be filed. Hence opportunity was granted to withdraw the Writ Petition and file Second Appeal. Month was lost in prosecuting the Writ Petition and since the order passed by the first appellate Court with regard to the delay condonation application was not communicated to the applicant, there was a delay. Considering all these facts I find that sufficient cause has been made out by the appellant. In the circumstances the delay stands condoned. JUDGE svk 3 4 5