1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 884 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO. 13664 OF 2009 Shri Shridhar Tatu Chavan ... Applicant v/s Shri Chandrakant Tatu Chavan & ors. ... Respondents Ms.Jai V. Kanade for the applicant. Mr.R.D.Suryawanshi for Resp. Nos.1A to 1E. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 13TH APRIL, 2010 P.C.: 1. The civil application has been filed for condoning the delay of 505 days in presenting the second appeal. The reasons mentioned for not filing the appeal within the stipulated time are that the applicant is a senior citizen and in poor health. It is also stated in the civil application that the applicant was suffering from various ailments including the degenerated lumber spondilosis and heightened osteoartum knee. The medical certificate issued by a doctor 2 from Sanjeevani Clinic indicates that the applicant, in the year 2008, was suffering from hypertension with peripheral neuropathy. He was advised further investigation and treatment from a neurologist. 2. An affidavit in reply has been filed in which it is averred that the applicant had attended various cases before several authorities during the period when he claims to have been unwell and not fit enough to approach this Court for filing the appeal. A rejoinder has been filed by the applicant. He has stated that he appeared before those authorities to prosecute the legal proceedings only because the distance between his house and the office of those authorities was far less than the distance to Mumbai. 3. The learned advocate appearing for the applicant places reliance on two judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anandnag & anr. v/s Mst.Katiji & ors. Reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in N.Balakrshnan v/s M.Krishnamurthy, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123, in support of her submission that if the delay is not condoned great prejudice will be caused to the applicant who has, according to her, a good case on merits. 3 4. The learned advocate for the respondent reiterates the contentions in the affidavit in reply and submits that no case has been made out for condoning the delay of 505 days. He submits that this is a partition suit and, therefore, this condoning the delay would only amount to prolonging the proceedings. 5. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties as well as the averments and pleadings, in my opinion, the applicant has made out a case for condoning the delay. Sufficient cause has been shown for condoning the delay. It is true that the applicant has attended the matters before the various authorities during the period when he was unwell but he has given an explanation which is plausible. He attended those cases only because the office of those authorities were situated closer to his house than Mumbai. 6. The civil application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) on condition that the appellant pays costs of Rs. 2000/- to the respondent Nos.1A to 1E within four weeks from today failing which the civil application will stand dismissed. ..... 4 5