ca3489.05 1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD _____________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________ .: CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3489 OF 2005 ,In SAST/6950/2004 SAHEBRAO VENKATRAO BHOSALE VERSUS ANANDRAO VENKATRAO BHOSALE ... None appears for the parties. ... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. Dated: November 29, 2011 ... This application has been filed for condonation of delay caused in filing second appeal. It is stated in para 2 of the application that the appellant / applicant was not aware of the decision given by the lower appellate Court in RCA No.139/92. The said order was not communicated to the appellant. It is further stated in para 3 that the applicant had no funds to engage Advocate and also for filing appeal. He further stated in para 5 that the son of the applicant, namely Namdeo, aged 22 years, was suffering from serious illness and he was required to take treatment of the doctor from time to time and due to his illness, the son was ca3489.05 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD _____________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________ .: not able to move and therefore, the applicant was required to look after his son. The applicant was mentally disturbed due to serious illness of his son Namdeo. 2 Though the Counsel for the respondent is not present, the affidavit-in-reply has been filed, which is on record. It is stated in the affidavit that no documentary evidence is produced on record regarding illness of Namdeo son of the applicant. Vague and general averments are made in the application. Therefore, this Court may not condone the delay caused in filing the appeal. 3 It is true that there is a considerable delay in filing the appeal. However, in view of the averments in the application and in particular, paras 2 and 5 of the application, it cannot be said that the delay has not been properly explained. Therefore, while considering the application for condonation of delay, if the delay is satisfactorily explained and sufficient cause has been given for the delay caused, merely the ca3489.05 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD _____________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________ .: length of delay cannot be a ground to reject the application for condonation of delay, defeating the right of the party to file and prosecute an appeal. 4 In that view of the matter, delay caused in filing second appeal stands condoned. Application is allowed and stands disposed of. Second appeal to be listed for admission on 6th January, 2012. (S.S. SHINDE, J.) PLK/*